
in support of free expression
The information presented here by the National
Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety,
provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from
NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source
of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information
obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering
unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here
may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without
the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.
©Copyright 2005 NCAC
WEB DESIGN
Jeanne Criscola Criscola Design
free speech first amendment censorship
|
|
|
|
|
Twenty-five
years after the release of Roy Orbisonís
song, "Oh Pretty Woman", 2 Live Crew
wrote a vulgar parody satirizing the famous rock
ballad. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., the owner of the
copyright for the song, brought an action against
Luther Campbell, the leader of the band 2 Live
Crew, for copyright infringement. At issue in
this case was the scope of the fair use provision
of the Federal Copyright Act, which specifically
permits unauthorized use of a work to criticize
and comment upon the work. Ultimately, the Supreme
Court examined whether 2 Live Crew's commercial
parody was indeed a fair
use of the original song within the meaning
of the Federal Copyright Act.

The music publishing company claimed that Campbell
had not made fair use of Orbison's song because
Campbell's version had taken too much from Orbisonís
original and used the work for commercial purposes.
Campbell claimed that his parody was fair use
because 2 Live Crew's song was a form of artistic
expression which sought to comment upon and criticize
the naivete of the original.

The Supreme Court agreed with Campbellís
argument and held that parody, like other comment
or criticism, may claim fair use under the Federal
Copyright Act. The Court recognized that "parody
has an obvious claim to transformative value [and]
the goal of copyright, to promote science and
the arts, is generally furthered by the creation
of transformative works."
|
|
Significance: |
| The
Supreme Court confirmed for the first time that
a parody is a protected form of speech, within the
scope of the fair use provisions of the Copyright
Act. It further rejected assumptions applied by
lower courts that the sale of parodies for profit
was presumptively unfair, and the parodist could
take no more than is necessary to conjure up the
underlying work. Instead, the court found that the
commercial or non-commercial purpose was merely
one of many factors, and that the amount and substantiality
of the permissible use of the original work depends
upon the extent to which the overriding purpose
and character of the new work is to parody the original
rather than serve as a market substitute for the
original. |
|
| These
materials are not intended, and should not be used, as
legal advice. They necessarily contain generalizations
that are not applicable in all jurisdictions or circumstances.
Moreover, court decisions may be superceded by subsequent
rulings, and may be subject to alternative interpretations.
Corrections, clarification, and additions are welcome.
Please send to ncac@ncac.org. |
|
Action Alerts
» National
» Eastern
» Central
» Mountain
» Pacific
» email alert sign-up
» report censorship!
|