Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

Definition

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1994 that addressed the issue of fair use in copyright law. The case involved a dispute between the hip-hop group 2 Live Crew and Acuff-Rose Music over the group's parody of Roy Orbison's song 'Oh, Pretty Woman.' The ruling established important precedents regarding transformative works and fair use, emphasizing that transformative uses can qualify for fair use even when they are commercial in nature.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew, determining that their parody of 'Oh, Pretty Woman' was a transformative work and therefore eligible for fair use.
2. The Court emphasized that commercial intent does not automatically disqualify a work from being considered fair use, as long as the work is transformative.
3. This case clarified the standard for evaluating fair use by introducing a more flexible interpretation of what constitutes a transformative work.
4. The decision highlighted the importance of context in assessing whether a work qualifies as fair use, focusing on how the new work alters the original's message or meaning.
5. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. has become a foundational case in copyright law, influencing future cases related to parody and transformative works.

Review Questions

• How did the Supreme Court's ruling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. redefine the understanding of fair use in copyright law?
  • The Supreme Court's ruling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. redefined fair use by establishing that transformative works could qualify for fair use even if they are created for commercial purposes. The Court highlighted that the transformative nature of a work—how it alters the original message or meaning—was crucial in evaluating fair use claims. This marked a shift from a more restrictive interpretation of copyright to one that allows for greater creativity and commentary through parody and other forms of expression.
• Discuss the significance of parody as it relates to the outcome of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. and how it impacts future cases involving copyright.
  • Parody played a significant role in the outcome of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., as the Court recognized that parody can serve as an important form of commentary on the original work. This acknowledgment set a precedent for how courts would evaluate parody under the fair use doctrine in future copyright cases. The ruling established that even commercially motivated parodies could be considered transformative and thus eligible for protection under fair use, encouraging creative expression while balancing the rights of copyright holders.
• Evaluate how Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. impacts the balance between copyright protection and freedom of expression in creative works.
  • Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. impacts the balance between copyright protection and freedom of expression by affirming that transformative works should be allowed more leeway under fair use provisions. This case reinforces the idea that creativity often builds upon existing works, and protecting parody and other transformative expressions is essential to fostering artistic innovation and commentary. As a result, this ruling encourages artists to engage with existing cultural works while still respecting copyright law, highlighting an evolving understanding of intellectual property rights within society.

Related terms

Fair Use: A legal doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, often for purposes like criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.

Transformative Work: A work that adds new expression or meaning to an existing work, which may qualify for fair use if it transforms the original work significantly enough.

Parody:

A humorous or satirical imitation of a work that critiques or comments on the original work, which can sometimes fall under the fair use doctrine.