I ultimately chose to research the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. case for my out-of-class assignment. The decision in this case was reached on March 7, 1994, after the matter had been debated since November 9, 1993. Fair use in the context of parody was examined in the well-known copyright case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. The case was sparked by the publication of "Pretty Woman," a parody of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" by 2 Live Crew. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., the owners of the original song's copyright, filed a lawsuit against 2 Live Crew for infringement. What ultimately happened to spark this lawsuit was, Hip-hop group 2 Live Crew was accused by the plaintiff, a music publisher and co-owner of Roy Orbison's 1964 rock ballad “Oh, …show more content…
With just a few tweaks when it comes to lyrics, but all instrumental, and background music is the same. Roy Orbison brought this to court to be further examined. The Sixth Circuit upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the parody was presumed to be unfair due to its commercial nature and that it did not qualify as fair use. Fair use is the ability to use copyrighted materials without approval from the copyright holder. Additionally, it was discovered that 2 Live Crew overreached themselves by utilizing the original's "heart" as the parody's, causing presumed harm to the music market. Appellants filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court. Because of the song "Pretty Woman" by 2 Live Crew, Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the group and their record company, alleging that the song violated Acuff-Rose's copyright in Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman." Given that 2 Live Crew's song was a parody that fairly utilized the original music, the District Court awarded summary judgment in favor of the group. Yet, the Court of Appeals reversed its decision, ruling that the parody was presumed to be unfair due to its commercial
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
There is no dispute that Mr.Nanokeesic showed an attempt to prevent the police from finding the weapon, when he ran from the police and discarded his backpack. The backpack was found by the police and searched, without a warrant.
Read the Case Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz in the text. Answer the following questions:
House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case, which originated out of a Tennessee trial court murder conviction and death sentence (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008). The case started with the murder of Carolyn Muncey late on the night of July 14, 1985, or in the early morning hours of July 15, 1985. Muncey disappeared from her home, and was found dead the next day, with her body having been dumped down an embankment and covered with brush and limbs. The defendant, Paul Gregory House, was seen in the area of the body dump site, on July 15, 1985, carrying a black rag, and reportedly coming up the embankment, in the area where Muncey’s body was later located (House v. Bell, 2006). Evidence collected from the body of
This case was about a father by the name of Bob Latimer, this man had a daughter who was suffering with a disease called cerebral palsy. The disease was unfortunately entrenched with his daughter since her birth and was caused by brain damage. The disease made her immobile with the exception of the rare movements she showed through facial expressions or head movements. Twelve year old Tracey Latimer was in continuous pain every moment of her life and she was incapable of taking care of herself despite her age. She was bedridden and could not communicate with anyone in her family; she was more like a living corpse. Hoping only to better her condition, her family took her through several surgeries where some were successful but did not really benefit her in any way. Tracey had five to six seizures everyday and her condition would only get worse. All this was unbearable to her father Mr. Latimer like it would be to any loving father and it was then that he decided to end her pain and suffering. Latimer put Tracey into the cab of his truck and suffocated her. He did this by attaching a pipeline into the exhaust of the cab and this allowed carbon monoxide to enter the car which eventually leads to the painless death of his daughter. He was first convicted in 1994 of second degree murder with a life sentence term of 25 years and without parole for 10 years. Latimer then appealed his case to the Supreme Court and the previous decision was upheld. However, there was an error found in the procedure of the trial as some of the jury members were questioned on their beliefs in relation to the crime on the basis of religion, mercy killings, and etc. which then constituted the trial as unfair und...
In prior cases regarding parody, the court has adopted different statutory interpretations. In Harley Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli, 164 F.3d 806 (2nd Cir. 1998), the defendant like Pets, Inc., admitted to purposively creating an association with the plaintiff’s mark, the wordings used by the CEO of Pets, Inc. are not as explicit as that of Grottanelli, however, he clearly states that he designed Petpel No. 13 to evoke fun of Chapel. His statement
Edward O. Wilson, the writer of this satire, writes about the opinions of two disagreeing sides to demonstrate the unproductive nature of these litigations. To do this, the author writes in a horatian manner and uses instances of exaggeration, parody, incongruity, and irony to help him convey his message that these arguments are pointless. The well distributed use of these strategies allows the writer to efficiently illustrate and mock the unproductive disagreement of these two groups of people.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
To begin, the events that took place in this Supreme Court Case occurred on November 17, 2003 involving Donnohue Grant and three Toronto Police Officers, two of which were dressed in plain clothes and in an unmarked car. The area had a history of student assaults, robberies and drug offences which was one of the main reasons for the obvious police presence in the vicinity. The accused was walking down the street very close to school when officer’s Worrall and Forde passed by in their unmarked car. Grant stared at the officers as they drove by him while fidgeting with his coat and pants in a particular way which caught the attention of undercover Worrall and Forde. Officer’s Worrall and Forde then informed officer Gomes that he should have a chat with the suspicious accused.
As Anderson uses a song lyric as text in the film’s dialogue, the question of how lyrics can be looked at in terms of conversational content is raised. In showing how men and women speak differently Tannen cites many kinds of examples in You Just Don’t Understand. Not only does she look at experimental and observational studies, she also includes excerpts from plays and short stories to show that speech patterns carry over into artistic expression[5]. Lyrics then can be examined in this same manner though they are a different type of conversation. If a play is two or more characters conversing with one another on stage, a song lyric can be viewed as one side of a story of dialogue. It does not become any less conversational because of this, but is a different way to interpret a relationship.
The Supreme Court has decided many controversial cases over the years, but the 1857 case of Dred Scott v. Sandford and the 1944 case of Korematsu v. United States stand out as grave miscarriages of justice. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, Dred Scott, an enslaved man, tried to sue for his freedom, along with the freedom of his wife and two children (Konkoly, 2006-a). However, the Court ruled that blacks were not citizens under the United States Constitution and, therefore, could not sue (Konkoly, 2006-a). In a similar case of racial injustice, Fred Korematsu, a Japanese-American man, was arrested and convicted for refusing to leave his home and enter an internment camp during World War II (Konkoly, 2006-b). Though Korematsu later appealed his conviction, the Supreme Court upheld it in a vote of 6-3 (Konkoly, 2006-b). Close analysis of the assenting and dissenting opinions in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Korematsu v. United States suggests that racism played a major role in the Supreme Court’s final rulings. This is significant because the rulings not only stripped the plaintiffs of their citizenship and civil liberties, but also revealed that the highest Court in the land is capable of egregious errors in judgment, particularly
One of the earliest controversies involving an artist’s actions and songs in in the music world came on June 5, 1956 when rock and roll legend Elvis Presley performed a rendition of his song “Hound Dog” that had the public outraged. He received backlash for his pelvis-shaking intensity his fans screamed for while television critics described it as “appalling ...
Another amusing example was in June 1965, radio stations across the country ban the Rolling Stones "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" because they believe the lyrics are too sexually suggestive.
Silent Rebellions for Gender Inequality. Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper” and Susan Glaspell’s Trifles both scrutinize the oppressive treatment of women in their respective societies, offering distinct yet complementary perspectives on the theme of gender inequality. Through their narratives, Gilman and Glaspell explore the psychological and societal ramifications of this oppression, revealing the detrimental effects on women's mental health and personal agency. Despite their different approaches, both authors convey a powerful critique of the patriarchal structures that confine and devalue women. In “The Yellow Wallpaper,” Gilman presents the story of a woman who is prescribed the “rest cure” for her postpartum depression.