Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Brief
By: Mehul Gupta
Heading:
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. ✓
Supreme Court of the United States ✓
March 7, 1994 ✓
Appears on Page 569, and is 32 pages long ✓
Statement of Facts:
Roy Orbison is the original content creator of “Oh, Pretty Woman, and 2 Live Crew is the group that parodied the song 25 years later. ✓
Roy Orbison's song “Oh Pretty Woman” written in 1965 was copyrighted and parodied for commercial value by 2 live crew. After initially requesting licensing right and rejected, 2 lives crew proceeded anyways to make the song with the intention to satirize it. After the song was finally released they still gave credit to Orbison and the authors/publishers, but Acuff-Rose Music not thrilled
…show more content…
sued and won in the lower court's where it was appealed. 1. The cause of action is someone’s work being utilized despite having copyright, and them not wanting the song up. 2. They wanted it taken down, or at least monetary compensation. 3. That it was a parody and hence not subject to the same conditions, also that they hadn’t taken too much as to violate its copyright. Issues Is the Parody taking too much from the original song, or is it’s message transformative enough? Is the purpose and character of the are commercial use protected by fair use precedent et by the Copyright Act of 1976? Is the parody harming the market of the original because of its’ commercial nature? Is this a parody or what is the nature of 2 live crew’s work? Holding Legal Legal Legal Legal Reasoning The lower court was mistaken in holding that the 2 crew live’s song excessively copied from the original.
The supreme court declared that the new song was permissible as it fulfilled the requirements of being a parody as it not only imitated the original but it also provided critical comedic commentary on it as well.
The result of the first question is so critical that it affects the rest of the results. Although 2 live crew’s song was for commercial purposes because it was distinct enough and was a parody it was permissible despite making money, This was the main question at hand.
The Supreme court ruled that the new song didn’t diminish the market value of the original as it was based on a genre which caters to a distinct audience.
The answer of this goes hand-in-hand with the first question as this is a parody with substantial differences from Orbison’s it is in the
…show more content…
clear. Conclusion / Final Deposition Describe the final disposition of the case.
Did the court decide in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant? What remedy, if any, did the court grant? If it is an appellate court opinion, did the court affirm the lower court's decision, reverse it in whole or in part, or remand the case for additional proceedings?
The court of appeals was in favor of 2 live crew by overturning the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee evaluation they clarified that the parody was actually protected by the copyright act of 1976. In remanding and reversing the lower court's initial decision they said that yes the commercial parody is protected by fair use.
The Judges decided they wanted they didn't want to hinder anyone’s ability to be creative since that was the intention of the precedent. In turn, they determined that this would require a case-by-case analysis, and in order for them to determine if it fit the test for the fair use they had to look at a myriad of factors.
First, they looked at whether or not this added something new to the original content. They asked whether this added enough new content, which they determined it did. This parody has transformative value, because of it [comedically] comments on the original work and doesn’t use the original for the sake of gaining attention, finally, it imitates the original to get a point
across. The supplements the reason the court overturned the lower court's; considering that it is a parody the song didn't take too much from the original and that the remix doesn’t considerably harm the market of the original as it is appealing to an audience of a different genre.
The court for this case found that the search and seizure of the stereo violated the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. The Decision was 6 votes for Hicks and 3 votes against.
They hired three different lawyers to handle their case, (which if you ask me, that's a clear sign that they know we have the upper hand in this case) two of them were clearly there for research purposes only, the other's name was Mister Smith, he stood up to give his opening statement. “While it is true that the video was made for educational purposes, to edit or show even small portions of films requires a public performance license, the only way to obtain this license is to have direct permission from the copyright owner. The only way this could be fair use is if he showed it to a small group of people such as a classroom and never put it online, this of course did not happen. We are not trying to stomp out small creators that just want to make educational content, we just want things to be fair.” He sat down next to the rest of his colleagues with a seemingly smug look on his face, like he thought he had this case in the bag. All company lawyers were like this, since large companies usually win court cases unless its something huge that could legitimately damage the company's image. I give my last statement before we leave the courtroom and let the jury decide Mister Faden's fate. “Despite what Mister Smith may have said about “not stomping out the little guys” they do it all the time. If someone wanted to make a necklace with the mickey silhouette and sell it
Many say that music has evolved over the years. This essay shall explore the elements of two versions of one song. It shall discuss the correlations and disparities of these songs and confer how it has been revolutionised to entertain the audiences of today.
...entertainment industry is saying that intellectual property is just as real as physical property. The digital age faces a true balancing act a digital dilemma if you will- the right to freedom of expression while protecting intellectual property.
At the time of the songs release the Vietnam War was in full swing, and became popular to the “silent majority”. The
The Princeton encyclopedia states “.. parody has been defined as the exaggerated imitation of work of art. Like a caricature it is based on distortion bringing into bolder relief the salient features of an artist's style or habit of mind. It belongs to genus satire and thus performs the double-edged task of reform and ridicule. Eccentricity, sentimentalism and pedantry are among its major targets, and at its best it is a critical instrument of telling force because it approaches the subject from within rather than from without..” In a nutshell parody can be put into simpler words as a criticism of the ideas and expression of another artist’s original work. The essence of a parody is its comic or satiric contrast to the serious work. What needs to be noted is that parody is considered as the oldest form of literary expression and hence has a variety of definitions that broaden its very meaning. To reason out the universal appeal of parodies, a twofold argument can be put forth; firstly what can...
...ing in the genre of a parody can further complicate the process of obtaining a precritical response even more. Because a parody is essentially an extended allusion and recognizing the connection is further evidence of thinking critically. It is this feature of the parody that makes the chances of having a full, unhindered experience of parodic poetry a rare feat.
He gives the readers a fun story with satire strung throughout calculated to cause laughter, but then also gives readers a look at the enjoyment of creating such a story, and the effects it can have on audiences. He expounds more upon this when describing the making of the film, how accomplished he felt, how much fun he had working with the other people, and the thrill of seeing people enjoy his
enjoyed the original more because I felt the lyrics were much more relatable. In the song he talks
The music industry’s history is a convoluted mess. There is no real consensus on what the music industry IS and what paths it has taken. Were the Beatles the greatest band to ever exist? Maybe. Is there a hyper objectification of women throughout the “men’s club” that is the music industry? Probably. It’s this hard to define, frankly confusing business that is worth roughly $130 billion dollars today. With it’s flimsy and opaque edges, can the music industry ever be called into question on its wrongdoings? The racist undertone throughout its history may force it to. With the music industry as an ever growing business that seems to change almost every decade, the one thing that has not changed throughout time is an undercurrent of racism that
The defendant is innocent by the claim of fair use. Professor Faden claims his use of Disney Studio’s movie clips is fair use. The purpose of using the clips was to teach students about fair use. In 1984 the court case Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp. , Universal Studios sued Sony Corp. for their Betamax recorder, which allowed public to record whole episode of a TV show. While the technology allowed people to record whole episodes of a show it was ruled fair use because the purpose in which the device was being used was good. The device did not deprive the copyright owners of revenue. People weren't selling the recorded tapes they were just watching them later. So take this court case ruling and apply it to this one. Professor Faden’s purpose is to teach and his using of Disney’s works isn't taking away their profit.
In the year 1965, Otis Redding released the song, Respect, which became a smash hit for Aretha Franklin two years later. Aretha Franklin’s version of Respect gained popularity for the catchy, upbeat music as well as the empowering lyrics. She was able to achieve this success by making significant revisions to the music, the delivery, and the lyrics. Franklin’s revisions to the music focused on the melody and the usage of different instruments on the recording in order to have Respect become more captivating and memorable. Aretha Franklin’s delivery of Respect uses more power and soul than Otis Redding’s version, creating an inspirational and thrilling performance. Her revisions to the lyrics include rewording several of the lead vocalists’
Keenan, E. K. (n.d.). Who are you Calling A Lady?; Feminity, sexuality, and third wave Feminism . Journal of Popular Music Studies, 378–401.
I am claiming fair use on this video, because this video only uses short clips of their movies. Fair use is a legal doctrine, that defends against copyright. Copyright is the right to an original work, given to the original author.
As Shields said, he believes in copyright, but he also believes in fair use. The main purpose behind the Copyright Act of 1976 was to allow Congress to address issues in American copyright law that had arisen in reference to the technological and societal changes. The last major changes happened in 1909, making the 1976 act an important revision because of the technology advance. Another reason was to insure authors that their work would be protected by the government. The act wanted to promote the intellectual and artistic activity for the good of the society as a whole. Therefore, the act was created in purpose of helping the authors out and to encourage others to become writers. This act also gave Congress permission to regulate applications and use enforcement. The act allows them to see more of what was going on and it let them be more in control. With this act a “fixed” work could now be accessible, meaning instead of going public domain, they just had to make sure the work could be found in one media source. This was making it easier for the authors that didn’t want their work out in the media world, but still wanted some credit. The ultimate goal