Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

1994-03-07

Headline: Court allows commercial parody to be treated as possible fair use, reversing appeals court and making it easier for musicians to use and remix famous songs after a fact-specific weighing

Holding: The Court ruled that a commercial parody can qualify as fair use, that commerciality is only one factor to weigh, and reversed the appeals court for failing to account properly for parody and copying in context.

Real World Impact:

Commercial parodies can be judged fair use, not automatically barred.
Record companies must show actual market harm for derivative rap versions.
Courts must weigh parody needs when assessing how much was copied.

Topics: copyright and parody, music sampling, fair use, artists and record companies

Summary

Background

A music publisher, Acuff-Rose, owned the copyright to Roy Orbison’s song “Oh, Pretty Woman.” A rap group known as 2 Live Crew wrote and released a parody called “Pretty Woman” in mid‑1989 after Acuff-Rose refused permission. The parody copied the opening line and bass riff and sold nearly a quarter of a million copies. Acuff-Rose sued for copyright infringement. The District Court found the parody fair use; the Sixth Circuit reversed.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court said parody can be fair use and that a work’s commercial sale is only one factor to weigh, not an automatic bar. The Court emphasized that parody must often “conjure up” recognizable parts of the original to make its critical point, so taking the memorable opening does not automatically mean excessive copying. The Court also held that the lower court had wrongly applied a presumption that commercial use equals unfairness and that questions about markets for derivative works (for example, a rap version) require evidence.

Real world impact

The ruling sends the case back to the lower courts to reexamine copying and market effect with parody’s special role in mind. Musicians, record companies, and publishers must now show or dispute actual market harm for derivative markets rather than rely on a blanket rule against commercial parodies. The decision keeps fair use as a flexible, case-by-case inquiry rather than a set ban on for-sale parodies.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kennedy’s concurrence adds that to be protected a parody must target the original itself and make a humorous or ironic comment about that work, not merely use it to joke about broader society. He warned courts to require a real critical link to the original before deeming commercial takeoffs fair use.