Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
The Court ruled that a commercial parody is not automatically unfair just because it makes money, rejecting a lower court's view that any profit-driven use of copyrighted material is presumptively unfair. It sent the case back for a closer look at how much of the song 2 Live Crew actually needed to borrow to make its parody work.
The decision reshaped how courts weigh fair use for parody and other creative reworkings, emphasizing that a new work's transformative character matters more than whether it was sold for profit. That approach has since guided countless disputes over sampling, remixes, and satire.
“the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use”
Explains why a parody's transformative character outweighs its commercial nature in the fair-use analysis.
How it got here: A federal trial court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew; the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding the parody's commercial nature barred fair use; the Supreme Court agreed to review that ruling.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Roy Orbison and William Dees wrote "Oh, Pretty Woman" in 1964 and assigned the rights to Acuff-Rose Music. In 1989 rap group 2 Live Crew wrote and recorded "Pretty Woman," a raunchy parody using the original's opening line and bass riff, despite Acuff-Rose refusing permission. After the recording sold roughly a quarter million copies, Acuff-Rose sued for copyright infringement.
The question before the Court
Could the rap group 2 Live Crew's raunchy send-up of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" count as fair use, even though the group sold it commercially and copied its signature riff and opening line?
Why it matters
Artists, comedians, and companies that parody or comment on existing copyrighted works gain more breathing room to profit from their creations without automatically losing a fair-use defense. Copyright owners retain protection against parodies that merely duplicate their work for profit, but the ruling makes clear that selling a parody, by itself, does not doom a fair-use claim.
What changes now
The case returns to the district court to weigh the still-open factual questions: whether 2 Live Crew's repetition of the bass riff was excessive copying, and whether the parody caused cognizable harm to any market for a rap version of the original song. This is a final merits ruling on the legal standard, but the ultimate fair-use outcome for this particular song was left to be resolved on remand.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether 2 Live Crew's copying of the musical bass riff was excessive, nor whether there was real market harm to any rap-derivative market for "Oh, Pretty Woman." It left those factual questions for the lower courts to resolve on remand, and expressed no view on parodies of works used purely as vehicles for satire unrelated to the original.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Kennedy
Justice Kennedy agreed with sending the case back but stressed that courts should keep the definition of parody narrow: a work qualifies only if it actually targets and comments on the original itself, not just its general style or society at large. He worried that loosely applying the parody label could let any commercial 'takeoff' be rationalized after the fact, and was not convinced 2 Live Crew's song met that bar, though he left room for the district court to decide.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied the four-factor fair use test in the Copyright Act, which asks about the purpose and character of the new use, the nature of the original, how much was taken, and the effect on the market for the original -- explaining that no single factor controls and all must be weighed together.
- On the first factor, the Court held that a work's commercial nature is only one consideration, not a presumption against fairness, and that the more 'transformative' a new work is -- meaning it adds new meaning or message rather than just replacing the original -- the less weight its commercial character carries.
- The Court found that 2 Live Crew's song could reasonably be perceived as commenting on and ridiculing the original's romantic sentiment, giving it a legitimate claim to transformative, parodic purpose.
- On the third factor, the Court explained that a parody may need to copy the original's most recognizable, 'heart' elements -- like a signature riff or opening line -- to make the target identifiable, so copying that heart is not automatically excessive if it serves the parody's purpose.
- On the fourth factor, the Court held that a lower court's presumption of market harm from commercial use does not apply once a use is transformative, and that harm from a parody's biting criticism (suppressing demand) differs from harm caused by the parody substituting for the original (usurping demand) -- only the latter counts against fair use.
- Because the record left unresolved how much of the music was copied and whether a market for rap versions of the song was harmed, the Court concluded these factual questions needed further development below.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Limits Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (464 U.S. 417)
Clarified that Sony's commercial-use language does not create a broad presumption against fair use for parody.
Reaffirms Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (471 U.S. 539)
Relied on for the idea that market harm matters, while clarifying there's no protectable derivative market for criticism.