CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC (1994)

Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. filed lawsuit against the members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew and their record company, claiming that 2 Live Crew's song, "Pretty Woman," infringed Acuff-Rose's copyright in Roy Orbison's rock ballad, "Oh Pretty Woman."  The District Court had ruled that 2 Live Crew’s song was a parody of the original; however, appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair for the purpose of the parody (first factor of the fair use doctrine), that by taking the "heart" of the original and making it the "heart" of a new work, 2 Live Crew had taken too much (third factor), and that market harm for (fourth factor) had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses.  The courts decided that the song fell into the proper categories of fair use, detailing the four different aspects of fair use and how the song accomplishes each of them.  2 Live Crew’s version was transformative and would not harm the reputation or financial gain of the original work.  The final decision of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, ruling the work as parody and therefore satisfying fair use judgment, leads me to believe that my transformation of the South Park’s narrative through film clips will be considered fair use and a parody of the original work.

2 Live Crew made a parody of Roy Orbison’s song, “Pretty Woman”. Using the same musical riff and a few of the same lyrics, 2 Live Crew’s producer informed Acuff-Rose of the use, and offered to pay whatever was necessary for its use. Acuff-Rose declined the offer, yet 2 Live Crew released the song anyway. After a quarter of a million albums were sold, the rap group was brought to court, but given judgment that the song was transformative and therefore, of fair use. Acuff-Rose appealed, and won the next judgment with claim idea that the use of the song was unfair use as it was commercialized. 2 Live Crew took the case to the Supreme Court, where they won. The courts decided that the song fell into the proper categories of fair use. The case details the four different aspects of fair use and how the song accomplishes each of them. 2 Live Crew’s version was parodic and therefore transformative, and would not harm the reputation or financial gain of the original work. In my project, I also plan to create a kind of parody of a short foreign movie trailer. I plan to transform the subtitles (in the same way 2 Live Crew transformed the lyrics) to create a parody of the original work. Though the judgments of works of parody are done on a case by case system, the final decision of the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case leads me to believe that my transformation of a film clip into a parody of the original will be considered fair use.