Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 · Property

PropertyCopyrightFair UseParodyfair usecopyrightparodytransformative use

Facts

Roy Orbison and William Dees wrote "Oh, Pretty Woman," and Acuff-Rose owned the copyright. In 1989, 2 Live Crew created and released a rap song, "Pretty Woman," which copied the original's opening bass riff and first line but then used different lyrics and musical alterations that 2 Live Crew claimed were parodic. Before release, 2 Live Crew's manager informed Acuff-Rose that the group had written a parody and offered to pay a fee, but Acuff-Rose refused permission. Acuff-Rose then sued for copyright infringement, and the fair use defense turned on whether the commercial parody was protected.

Issue

Can a commercial parody of a copyrighted song qualify as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107? More specifically, does the commercial nature of the parody or its taking of the original's "heart" automatically bar fair use or create a presumption of market harm?

Rule

Fair use under § 107 requires a case-by-case balancing of all four statutory factors together in light of copyright's purposes. A parody may qualify as fair use, and its commercial nature is only one element of the first-factor inquiry, not a presumption or bar against fairness. The central first-factor question is whether the new work is transformative by adding new expression, meaning, or message rather than merely superseding the original. In parody, copying enough of the original to "conjure up" the work may be permissible, including memorable portions, so long as the amount taken is reasonable in relation to the parodic purpose. No presumption of market harm applies where the challenged use is transformative rather than mere commercial duplication.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Nashville, a for-profit comedy duo called Cedar Lane Audio sells a digital track that opens with the signature hook and first lyric of a famous love song, then switches to new lyrics mocking the original song's sugary romantic worldview. The copyright owner sues and argues that because the duo sold the track for profit, the first fair-use factor automatically defeats the defense.

Which is the best response under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rejected any per se rule or presumption that commercial parody is unfair. Under the first factor, the court asks whether the new work merely supersedes the original or instead adds new expression, meaning, or message. Commerciality matters, but only as part of a broader, case-by-case inquiry. (Derived from Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (n.d.).)