Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)
Parody, fair use, and the role of commercial purpose — explained in easy English.
Quick Summary
This case explains how parody can be fair use. 2 Live Crew made a parody of “Oh, Pretty Woman.” The question was: does the commercial nature kill fair use?
The Supreme Court said no. Commercial purpose is only one factor. Courts must weigh all four §107 factors and judge each case in context.
Issues
- Does a parody that borrows from a song qualify as fair use?
- Is a commercial purpose decisive against fair use?
Rules
- Commercial purpose is only one part of the purpose and character analysis; it is not automatically against fair use.
- Apply all four §107 factors: (1) purpose/character, (2) nature, (3) amount/substantiality, (4) market effect.
- Parody may need to quote recognizable elements so that the audience gets the comment.
Facts (Timeline)
Citation: 510 U.S. 569
Arguments
Petitioners (2 Live Crew)
- The work is a parody that comments on the original.
- Transformative purpose; not a market substitute for the original song.
- Some recognizable quoting is necessary so listeners get the joke.
Respondent (Acuff-Rose)
- The track is commercial, which should weigh heavily against fair use.
- It took the heart of the song, showing excessive taking.
- Presumed market harm due to commercial exploitation.
Judgment
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. It held that a commercial parody can still be fair use. Commercial purpose is only one element and does not create a presumption against fair use.
- Purpose/Character: Parody may be transformative and can weigh in favor of fair use even if sold commercially.
- Nature: Musical works are creative, but this factor is not controlling.
- Amount: Taking must be judged by the goal of parody; recognizable use can be justified.
- Market Effect: No automatic presumption of harm; consider actual substitution risk for the original or its markets.
Ratio
Commercial status does not decide fair use. Parody must be assessed under all four §107 factors; limited recognizable copying can be lawful when it comments on the original.
Why It Matters
- Protects parody as a space for commentary and humor.
- Rejects rigid rules against commercial uses in fair use law.
- Guides courts on transformative use and market harm analysis.
Key Takeaways
Some borrowing is needed so people recognize the target.
Commenting on the original can shift the balance toward fair use.
No single factor controls; context matters.
Look for real substitution, not assumptions.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “PACT” — Parody needs quoting · Amount fits purpose · Commercial isn’t decisive · Transformative comment.
- Spot the Comment: Does the new work comment on the original?
- Match the Amount: Is the taking limited to what the joke needs?
- Test the Market: Is there actual substitution or only added commentary?
IRAC Outline
Issue
Can a commercial parody be fair use?
Rule
Apply all §107 factors; commercial purpose does not control.
Application
Transformative parody; amount tied to recognition; no presumed market harm.
Conclusion
A commercial parody can be fair use; case remanded for fact-specific analysis.
Glossary
- Parody
- New work that imitates and comments on the original, often with humor.
- Transformative Use
- Use that adds new meaning, message, or purpose to the original.
- Market Substitution
- When the new work replaces demand for the original or its licensed derivatives.
- Amount/Substantiality
- How much was taken and whether it was more than needed for the purpose.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now