Briefs and Other Related Documents

SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
LutherR.CAMPBELLakaLukeSkyywalker,etal.,Petitioners,
v.
ACUFFROSEMUSIC,INC.
No. 92-1292.
ArguedNov.9,1993.
DecidedMarch7,1994.
Holdersofcopyrighttosongsuedrapmusicgroupforcopyrightinfringement.The
UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofTennessee,ThomasA.
Wiseman,Jr.,J.,754F.Supp.1150,grantedsummaryjudgmentforrapgroup,and
copyrightholdersappealed.TheCourtofAppeals,972F.2d1429,reversedand
remanded,basedonfindingthatrapgroup'sparodywasnotfairuseofcopyrighted
song.Writofcertiorariwasgranted.TheSupremeCourt,JusticeSouter,held
thatcommercialcharacterofsongparodydidnotcreatepresumptionagainstfair
use.
Reversedandremanded.
JusticeKennedyfiledconcurringopinion.
WestHeadnotes
[1] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Sectionof1976CopyrightActdescribingfairusedoctrinerequirescasebycase
analysisandnotrigidapplicationofbrightlinerules;statutoryexamplesof
permissibleusesprovideonlygeneralguidance.17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[2] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Statutoryfactorsoffairusedoctrinelistedin1976CopyrightAct,whichare
purposeandcharacterofuse,natureofcopyrightedwork,amountandsubstantiality
ofportionusedinrelationtocopyrightedworkaswhole,andeffectofuseon
potentialmarketfororvalueofcopyrightedwork,mustbeexploredtogether,and
notinisolation,inlightofpurposeofcopyrightlaws.17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[3] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Forpurposesofdeterminingwhetherparodyofcopyrightedworkis"fairuse,"
inquiryfocusesonwhethernewworkmerelysupersedesobjectoforiginalcreationor
whetherandtowhatextentitis"transformative"andaltersoriginalworkwithnew
expression,meaningormessage.17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[4] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Forpurposesofdeterminingwhetherparodyofcopyrightedworkis"fairuse,"the
more"transformative"thenewworkis,thelesssignificantareotherfactors,like

commercialism,thatmightweighagainstfindingoffairuse,eventhough
transformativeuseisnotabsolutelynecessaryforfindingoffairuse;
transformativeworkslieatheartoffairusedoctrine'sguaranteeofbreathing
spacewithinconfinesofcopyright.17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[5] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Parody,likeothercommentorcriticism,mayclaimfairusestatusunderCopyright
Act.17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[6] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Forpurposesofcopyrightlaw,"parody"isuseofsomeelementsofpriorauthor's
compositiontocreatenewonethat,atleastinpart,commentsonoriginalauthor's
work.17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[7] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Forpurposesofdeterminingwhetherparodyofcopyrightedworkis"fairuse,"
thresholdquestioniswhetherparodiccharactermayreasonablybeperceived;
whetherparodyisingoodtasteorbaddoesnotandshouldnotmatter.17U.S.C.A.
101,107.
[8] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Forpurposesofdeterminingwhetherparodyofcopyrightedworkisfairuse,every
commercialuseofcopyrightedmaterialisnotpresumptivelyunfair;work's
commercialnatureisonlyoneelementtobeconsidered.17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[9] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 52
99k52MostCitedCases
Factthatuseofcopyrightedworkiseducationalandnotforprofitdoesnot
insulateitfromfindingofinfringement,anymorethancommercialcharacterofuse
barsfindingoffairness.17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[10] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Considerationof"natureofcopyrightedwork,"asrequiredbyCopyrightAct,in
determiningfairuseisoflittlevalueinparodycasesasparodiesalmost
invariablycopypubliclyknownandexpressiveworks.17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[11] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Forpurposesofdeterminingwhetheruseofcopyrightedworkis"fairuse,"
considerationofamountandsubstantialityofportionoforiginalusedinrelation
tocopyrightedworkasawholeandwhethersubstantialportionofinfringingwork
wascopiedverbatimfromcopyrightedworkisrelevantquestion;considerationturns
onpersuasivenessofjustificationforparticularcopying.17U.S.C.A.101,
107.
[12] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Evenifallegedlyinfringingworkcopies"heart"fromoriginal,useforparodymay
stillbe"fairuse"asparodytakesaimat"heart"oforiginalaspartofworkwhich

willmostreadilyconjureuporiginalforparody.17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[13] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 66
99k66MostCitedCases
Songparodydidnotborrowexcessivelyfromoriginallyrics,evenifparodydid
borrowfrom"heart"oforiginallyrics,butrepetitionofmusicrequiredevaluation
inlightofsong'sparodicpurposeandcharacteranditstransformativeelementsand
considerationofpotentialformarketsubstitution.17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[14] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Forpurposesofdetermining"fairuse,"courtconsiderseffectofuseonpotential
marketfororvalueofcopyrightedworkwhichrequiresdeterminationofextentof
marketharmcausedbyparticularactionsofallegedinfringeranddeterminationof
whetherunrestrictedandwidespreadconductofsortengagedinbyallegedinfringer
wouldresultinsubstantiallyadverseimpactonpotentialmarketfororiginal.17
U.S.C.A.101,107.
[15] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 66
99k66MostCitedCases
Factthatuseofcopyrightedsonginparodywaswhollycommercialwouldnotallow
presumptionoflikelihoodoffutureharmtocopyrightholdersaspresumptionof
marketharmappliesonlywhencommercialuseamountstomereduplicationofentirety
oforiginal.17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[16] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Factthatparodymayharmmarketfororiginal,orkilldemandfororiginal
completely,doesnotproduceharmcognizableunderCopyrightAct;court
distinguishesbetweenbitingcriticismthatmerelysuppressesdemandandcopyright
infringementwhichusurpsit.17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[17] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Ifparodyofcopyrightedworkhaseffectnotonlyinarenaofcriticismbutalsoin
protectablemarketsforderivativeworks,lawlooksbeyondcriticismtoother
elementsofworktodetermineifparodyis"fairuse."17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[18] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 53.2
99k53.2MostCitedCases
Factthatparodymayimpairmarketforderivativeusesbyveryeffectivenessofits
criticalcommentaryisnomorerelevantundercopyrightthanlikethreattooriginal
market.17U.S.C.A.101,107.
[19] Copyrights and Intellectual Property 66
99k66MostCitedCases
Absentanythinginrecordtoshoweffectofsongparodyonderivativemarketfor
nonparody,rapversionofcopyrightedwork,authorsofparody,asproponentsof
affirmativedefenseoffairuse,werenotentitledtosummaryjudgment.
**1166Syllabus[FN*]

FN*ThesyllabusconstitutesnopartoftheopinionoftheCourtbuthasbeen
preparedbytheReporterofDecisionsfortheconvenienceofthereader.See
United States v. Detroit Lumber Co.,200U.S.321,337,26S.Ct.282,287,50L.Ed.

499.
RespondentAcuffRoseMusic,Inc.,filedsuitagainstpetitioners,themembersof
therapmusicgroup2LiveCrewandtheirrecordcompany,claimingthat2Live
Crew'ssong,"PrettyWoman,"infringedAcuffRose'scopyrightinRoyOrbison'srock
ballad,"Oh,PrettyWoman."TheDistrictCourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentfor2Live
Crew,holdingthatitssongwasaparodythatmadefairuseoftheoriginalsong.
SeeCopyrightActof1976,17U.S.C.107.TheCourtofAppealsreversedand
remanded,holdingthatthecommercialnatureoftheparodyrendereditpresumptively
unfairunderthefirstoffourfactorsrelevantunder107;that,bytakingthe
"heart"oftheoriginalandmakingitthe"heart"ofanewwork,2LiveCrewhad,
qualitatively,takentoomuchunderthethird107factor;andthatmarketharm
forpurposesofthefourth107factorhadbeenestablishedbyapresumption
attachingtocommercialuses.
Held:2LiveCrew'scommercialparodymaybeafairusewithinthemeaningof
107.Pp.11691179.
(a)Section107,whichprovidesthat"thefairuseofacopyrightedwork...for
purposessuchascriticism[or]comment...isnotaninfringement...,"continues
thecommonlawtraditionoffairuseadjudicationandrequirescasebycaseanalysis
ratherthanbrightlinerules.Thestatutoryexamplesofpermissibleusesprovide
onlygeneralguidance.Thefourstatutoryfactorsaretobeexploredandweighed
togetherinlightofcopyright'spurposeofpromotingscienceandthearts.Pp.
11691171.
(b)Parody,likeothercommentandcriticism,mayclaimfairuse.Underthefirst
ofthefour107factors,"thepurposeandcharacteroftheuse,includingwhether
suchuseisofacommercialnature...,"theenquiryfocusesonwhetherthenewwork
merelysupersedestheobjectsoftheoriginalcreation,orwhetherandtowhat
extentitis"transformative,"alteringtheoriginalwithnewexpression,meaning,
ormessage.Themoretransformativethenewwork,thelesswillbethe
significanceofotherfactors,likecommercialism,thatmayweighagainstafinding
offairuse.Theheartofanyparodist'sclaimtoquotefromexistingmaterialis
theuseofsomeelementsofapriorauthor'scompositionto*570createanewone
that,atleastinpart,commentsonthatauthor'swork.Butthattellscourts
littleaboutwheretodrawtheline.Thus,likeotheruses,parodyhastoworkits
waythroughtherelevantfactors.Pp.11711172.
(c)TheCourtofAppealsproperlyassumedthat2LiveCrew'ssongcontainsparody
commentingonandcriticizingtheoriginalwork,buterredingivingvirtually
dispositiveweighttothecommercialnatureofthatparodybywayofapresumption,
ostensiblyculledfromSony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,464U.S.417,
451,104S.Ct.774,792,78L.Ed.2d574,that"everycommercialuseofcopyrighted
**1167materialispresumptively...unfair...."Thestatutemakesclearthata
work'scommercialnatureisonlyoneelementofthefirstfactorenquiryintoits
purposeandcharacter,andSonyitselfcalledfornohardevidentiarypresumption.
TheCourtofAppeals'srulerunscountertoSonyandtothelongcommonlaw
traditionoffairuseadjudication.Pp.11721174.
(d)Thesecond107factor,"thenatureofthecopyrightedwork,"isnotmuch
helpinresolvingthisandotherparodycases,sinceparodiesalmostinvariablycopy
publiclyknown,expressiveworks,liketheOrbisonsonghere.P.1175.

(e)TheCourtofAppealserredinholdingthat,asamatteroflaw,2LiveCrew
copiedexcessivelyfromtheOrbisonoriginalunderthethird107factor,which
askswhether"theamountandsubstantialityoftheportionusedinrelationtothe
copyrightedworkasawhole"arereasonableinrelationtothecopying'spurpose.
Evenif2LiveCrew'scopyingoftheoriginal'sfirstlineoflyricsand
characteristicopeningbassriffmaybesaidtogototheoriginal's"heart,"that
heartiswhatmostreadilyconjuresupthesongforparody,anditistheheartat
whichparodytakesaim.Moreover,2LiveCrewthereafterdepartedmarkedlyfrom
theOrbisonlyricsandproducedotherwisedistinctivemusic.Astothelyrics,the
copyingwasnotexcessiveinrelationtothesong'sparodicpurpose.Astothe
music,thisCourtexpressesnoopinionwhetherrepetitionofthebassriffis
excessivecopying,butremandstopermitevaluationoftheamounttaken,inlightof
thesong'sparodicpurposeandcharacter,itstransformativeelements,and
considerationsofthepotentialformarketsubstitution.Pp.11751177.
(f)TheCourtofAppealserredinresolvingthefourth107factor,"theeffect
oftheuseuponthepotentialmarketfororvalueofthecopyrightedwork,"by
presuming,inrelianceonSony, supra,at451,104S.Ct.,at793,thelikelihoodof
significantmarketharmbasedon2LiveCrew'suseforcommercialgain.No
"presumption"orinferenceofmarketharmthatmightfindsupportinSonyis
applicabletoacaseinvolvingsomethingbeyondmereduplicationforcommercial
purposes.Thecognizableharmismarketsubstitution,notanyharmfromcriticism.
Astoparody*571pureandsimple,itisunlikelythattheworkwillactasa
substitutefortheoriginal,sincethetwoworksusuallyservedifferentmarket
functions.Thefourthfactorrequirescourtsalsotoconsiderthepotentialmarket
forderivativeworks.See,e.g., Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises,471
U.S.539,105S.Ct.2218,85L.Ed.2d588(1985).Ifthelaterworkhascognizable
substitutioneffectsinprotectiblemarketsforderivativeworks,thelawwilllook
beyondthecriticismtothework'sotherelements.2LiveCrew'ssongcomprises
notonlyparodybutalsorapmusic.Theabsenceofevidenceoraffidavits
addressingtheeffectof2LiveCrew'ssongonthederivativemarketfora
nonparody,rapversionof"Oh,PrettyWoman"disentitled2LiveCrew,asthe
proponentoftheaffirmativedefenseoffairuse,tosummaryjudgment.Pp.1177
1179.
972F.2d1429(CA61992),reversedandremanded.
SOUTER,J.,deliveredtheopinionforaunanimousCourt.KENNEDY,J.,fileda
concurringopinion,post,p.1180.
BruceS.Rogow,forpetitioners.
SidneyS.Rosedeitcher,forrespondent.
JusticeSOUTERdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.
Wearecalledupontodecidewhether2LiveCrew'scommercialparodyofRoy
Orbison'ssong,"Oh,PrettyWoman,"*572maybeafairusewithinthemeaningof
theCopyrightActof1976,17U.S.C.107(1988ed.andSupp.IV).Althoughthe
DistrictCourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentfor2LiveCrew,theCourtofAppeals
reversed,holdingthedefenseoffairusebarredbythesong's**1168commercial
characterandexcessiveborrowing.Becauseweholdthataparody'scommercial
characterisonlyoneelementtobeweighedinafairuseenquiry,andthat

insufficientconsiderationwasgiventothenatureofparodyinweighingthedegree
ofcopying,wereverseandremand.
I
In1964,RoyOrbisonandWilliamDeeswrotearockballadcalled"Oh,PrettyWoman"
andassignedtheirrightsinittorespondentAcuffRoseMusic,Inc.SeeAppendix
A,infra,at1179.AcuffRoseregisteredthesongforcopyrightprotection.
PetitionersLutherR.Campbell,ChristopherWongwon,MarkRoss,andDavidHobbsare
collectivelyknownas2LiveCrew,apopularrapmusicgroup.[FN1]In1989,
Campbellwroteasongentitled"PrettyWoman,"whichhelaterdescribedinan
affidavitasintended,"throughcomicallyrics,tosatirizetheoriginalwork...."
App.toPet.forCert.80a.OnJuly5,1989,2LiveCrew'smanagerinformedAcuff
Rosethat2LiveCrewhadwrittenaparodyof"Oh,PrettyWoman,"thattheywould
affordallcreditforownershipandauthorshipoftheoriginalsongtoAcuffRose,
Dees,andOrbison,andthattheywerewillingtopayafeefortheusetheywished
tomakeofit.Enclosedwiththeletterwereacopyofthelyricsandarecording
of2LiveCrew'ssong.SeeAppendixB,infra,at117980.AcuffRose'sagent
refusedpermission,statingthat"Iamawareofthesuccess*573enjoyedby'The2
LiveCrews',butImustinformyouthatwecannotpermittheuseofaparodyof'Oh,
PrettyWoman.'"App.toPet.forCert.85a.Nonetheless,inJuneorJuly1989,
[FN2]2LiveCrewreleasedrecords,cassettetapes,andcompactdiscsof"Pretty
Woman"inacollectionofsongsentitled"AsCleanAsTheyWannaBe."Thealbums
andcompactdiscsidentifytheauthorsof"PrettyWoman"asOrbisonandDeesandits
publisherasAcuffRose.
FN1.Raphasbeendefinedasa"styleofblackAmericanpopularmusic
consistingofimprovisedrhymesperformedtoarhythmicaccompaniment."The
Norton/GroveConciseEncyclopediaofMusic613(1988).2LiveCrewplays
"[b]assmusic,"aregional,hiphopstyleofrapfromtheLibertyCityareaof
Miami,Florida.BriefforPetitioners34.
FN2.Thepartiesargueaboutthetiming.2LiveCrewcontendsthatthealbum
wasreleasedonJuly15,andtheDistrictCourtsoheld.754F.Supp.1150,
1152(MDTenn.1991).TheCourtofAppealsstatesthatCampbell'saffidavit
putsthereleasedateinJune,andchoosesthatdate.972F.2d1429,1432
(CA61992).Wefindthetimingoftherequestirrelevantforpurposesof
thisenquiry.Seen.18,infra,discussinggoodfaith.
Almostayearlater,afternearlyaquarterofamillioncopiesoftherecording
hadbeensold,AcuffRosesued2LiveCrewanditsrecordcompany,LukeSkyywalker
Records,forcopyrightinfringement.TheDistrictCourtgrantedsummaryjudgment
for2LiveCrew,[FN3]reasoningthatthecommercialpurposeof2LiveCrew'ssong
wasnobartofairuse;that2LiveCrew'sversionwasaparody,which"quickly
degeneratesintoaplayonwords,substitutingpredictablelyricswithshocking
ones"toshow"howblandandbanaltheOrbisonsong"is;that2LiveCrewhadtaken
nomorethanwasnecessaryto"conjureup"theoriginalinordertoparodyit;and
thatitwas"extremelyunlikelythat2LiveCrew'ssongcouldadverselyaffectthe
marketfortheoriginal."754F.Supp.1150,11541155,11571158(MDTenn.1991).
TheDistrictCourtweighedthesefactorsandheldthat2LiveCrew'ssongmadefair
useofOrbison'soriginal.Id.,at11581159.
FN3.2LiveCrew'smotiontodismisswasconvertedtoamotionforsummary

judgment.AcuffRosedefendedagainstthemotion,butfilednocrossmotion.
TheCourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuitreversedandremanded.972F.2d1429,
1439(1992).Althoughitassumedforthepurposeofitsopinionthat2LiveCrew's
song*574wasaparodyoftheOrbisonoriginal,theCourtofAppealsthoughtthe
DistrictCourthadputtoolittleemphasisonthefactthat"everycommercial
use...ispresumptively...unfair,"Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
464U.S.417,451,104S.Ct.774,792,78L.Ed.2d574(1984),anditheldthat"the
admittedlycommercialnature"**1169oftheparody"requirestheconclusion"that
thefirstoffourfactorsrelevantunderthestatuteweighsagainstafindingof
fairuse.972F.2d,at1435,1437.Next,theCourtofAppealsdeterminedthat,by
"takingtheheartoftheoriginalandmakingittheheartofanewwork,"2Live
Crewhad,qualitatively,takentoomuch.Id.,at1438.Finally,afternotingthat
theeffectonthepotentialmarketfortheoriginal(andthemarketforderivative
works)is"undoubtedlythesinglemostimportantelementoffairuse,"Harper & Row,
Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises,471U.S.539,566,105S.Ct.2218,2233,85L.Ed.2d
588(1985),theCourtofAppealsfaultedtheDistrictCourtfor"refus[ing]to
indulgethepresumption"that"harmforpurposesofthefairuseanalysishasbeen
establishedbythepresumptionattachingtocommercialuses."972F.2d,at1438
1439.Insum,thecourtconcludedthatits"blatantlycommercialpurpose...
preventsthisparodyfrombeingafairuse."Id.,at1439.
Wegrantedcertiorari,507U.S.1003,113S.Ct.1642,123L.Ed.2d264(1993),to
determinewhether2LiveCrew'scommercialparodycouldbeafairuse.
II
Itisuncontestedherethat2LiveCrew'ssongwouldbeaninfringementofAcuff
Rose'srightsin"Oh,PrettyWoman,"undertheCopyrightActof1976,17U.S.C.
106(1988ed.andSupp.IV),butforafindingoffairusethroughparody.[FN4]
*575Fromtheinfancyofcopyrightprotection,someopportunityforfairuseof
copyrightedmaterialshasbeenthoughtnecessarytofulfillcopyright'svery
purpose,"[t]opromotetheProgressofScienceandusefulArts...."U.S.Const.,
Art.I,8,cl.8.[FN5]ForasJusticeStoryexplained,"[i]ntruth,in
literature,inscienceandinart,thereare,andcanbe,few,ifany,things,which
inanabstractsense,arestrictlynewandoriginalthroughout.Everybookin
literature,scienceandart,borrows,andmustnecessarilyborrow,andusemuch
whichwaswellknownandusedbefore."Emerson v. Davies,8F.Cas.615,619(No.
4,436)(CCDMass.1845).Similarly,LordEllenboroughexpressedtheinherent
tensionintheneedsimultaneouslytoprotectcopyrightedmaterialandtoallow
otherstobuilduponitwhenhewrote,"whileIshallthinkmyselfboundtosecure
everymanintheenjoymentofhiscopyright,onemustnotputmanaclesupon
science."*576Carey v. Kearsley,4Esp.168,170,170Eng.Rep.679,681(K.B.1803).
IncopyrightcasesbroughtundertheStatuteofAnneof1710,[FN6]Englishcourts
heldthatinsomeinstances"fairabridgements"would**1170notinfringean
author'srights,seeW.Patry,TheFairUsePrivilegeinCopyrightLaw617(1985)
(hereinafterPatry);Leval,TowardaFairUseStandard,103Harv.L.Rev.1105(1990)
(hereinafterLeval),andalthoughtheFirstCongressenactedourinitialcopyright
statute,ActofMay31,1790,1Stat.124,withoutanyexplicitreferenceto"fair
use,"asitlatercametobeknown,[FN7]thedoctrinewasrecognizedbythe
Americancourtsnonetheless.
FN4.Section106providesinpart:
"Subjecttosections107through120,theownerofcopyrightunderthistitle

hastheexclusiverightstodoandtoauthorizeanyofthefollowing:
"(1)toreproducethecopyrightedworkincopiesorphonorecords;
"(2)topreparederivativeworksbaseduponthecopyrightedwork;
"(3)todistributecopiesorphonorecordsofthecopyrightedworktothe
publicbysaleorothertransferofownership,orbyrental,lease,or
lending...."
Aderivativeworkisdefinedasone"basedupononeormorepreexistingworks,
suchasatranslation,musicalarrangement,dramatization,fictionalization,
motionpictureversion,soundrecording,artreproduction,abridgment,
condensation,oranyotherforminwhichaworkmayberecast,transformed,or
adapted.Aworkconsistingofeditorialrevisions,annotations,
elaborations,orothermodificationswhich,asawhole,representanoriginal
workofauthorship,isa'derivativework.'"17U.S.C.101.
2LiveCrewconcedesthatitisnotentitledtoacompulsorylicenseunder
115becauseitsarrangementchanges"thebasicmelodyorfundamental
character"oftheoriginal.115(a)(2).
FN5.Theexclusionoffactsandideasfromcopyrightprotectionservesthat
goalaswell.See102(b)("Innocasedoescopyrightprotectionforan
originalworkofauthorshipextendtoanyidea,procedure,process,system,
methodofoperation,concept,principle,ordiscovery...");Feist Publications,
Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.,499U.S.340,359,111S.Ct.1282,1294,113
L.Ed.2d358(1991)("[F]actscontainedinexistingworksmaybefreely
copied");Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises,471U.S.539,547,105
S.Ct.2218,2223,85L.Ed.2d588(1985)(copyrightowner'srightsexclude
factsandideas,andfairuse).
FN6.AnActfortheEncouragementofLearning,8Anne,ch.19.
FN7.Patry27,citingLawrence v. Dana,15F.Cas.26,60(No.8,136)(CCD
Mass.1869).
[1]InFolsom v. Marsh,9F.Cas.342(No.4,901)(CCDMass.1841),JusticeStory
distilledtheessenceoflawandmethodologyfromtheearliercases:"looktothe
natureandobjectsoftheselectionsmade,thequantityandvalueofthematerials
used,andthedegreeinwhichtheusemayprejudicethesale,ordiminishthe
profits,orsupersedetheobjects,oftheoriginalwork."Id.,at348.Thus
expressed,fairuseremainedexclusivelyjudgemadedoctrineuntilthepassageof
the1976CopyrightAct,inwhichJusticeStory'ssummaryisdiscernible:[FN8]
FN8.Leval1105.Forahistoricalaccountofthedevelopmentofthefairuse
doctrine,seePatry164.
"107.Limitationsonexclusiverights:Fairuse
"Notwithstandingtheprovisionsofsections106and106A,thefairuseofa
copyrightedwork,includingsuchusebyreproductionincopiesorphonorecordsor
byanyothermeansspecifiedbythatsection,forpurposessuchascriticism,
comment,newsreporting,teaching(includingmultiplecopiesforclassroomuse),
scholarship,orresearch,isnotaninfringementofcopyright.Indetermining
whethertheusemadeofaworkinanyparticular*577caseisafairusethe
factorstobeconsideredshallinclude
"(1)thepurposeandcharacteroftheuse,includingwhethersuchuseisofa
commercialnatureorisfornonprofiteducationalpurposes;

"(2)thenatureofthecopyrightedwork;
"(3)theamountandsubstantialityoftheportionusedinrelationtothe
copyrightedworkasawhole;and
"(4)theeffectoftheuseuponthepotentialmarketfororvalueofthe
copyrightedwork.
"Thefactthataworkisunpublishedshallnotitselfbarafindingoffairuseif
suchfindingismadeuponconsiderationofalltheabovefactors."17U.S.C.
107(1988ed.andSupp.IV).
Congressmeant107"torestatethepresentjudicialdoctrineoffairuse,not
tochange,narrow,orenlargeitinanyway"andintendedthatcourtscontinuethe
commonlawtraditionoffairuseadjudication.H.R.Rep.No.941476,p.66(1976)
(hereinafterHouseReport);S.Rep.No.94473,p.62(1975)U.S.CodeCong.&
Admin.News1976,pp.5659,5679(hereinafterSenateReport).Thefairusedoctrine
thus"permits[andrequires]courtstoavoidrigidapplicationofthecopyright
statutewhen,onoccasion,itwouldstifletheverycreativitywhichthatlawis
designedtofoster."Stewart v. Abend,495U.S.207,236,110S.Ct.1750,1767,109
L.Ed.2d184(1990)(internalquotationmarksandcitationomitted).
[2]Thetaskisnottobesimplifiedwithbrightlinerules,forthestatute,like
thedoctrineitrecognizes,callsforcasebycaseanalysis.Harper & Row,471U.S.,
at560,105S.Ct.,at2230;Sony,464U.S.,at448,andn.31,104S.Ct.,at792,&
n.31;HouseReport,pp.6566;SenateReport,p.62.Thetextemploystheterms
"including"and"suchas"inthepreambleparagraphtoindicatethe"illustrative
andnotlimitative"functionoftheexamplesgiven,101;seeHarper & Row, supra,
471U.S.,at561,105S.Ct.,at2230,whichthusprovideonlygeneralguidanceabout
thesortsofcopyingthatcourtsand*578Congressmostcommonlyhadfoundtobe
fairuses.[FN9]Normaythefour**1171statutoryfactorsbetreatedin
isolation,onefromanother.Allaretobeexplored,andtheresultsweighed
together,inlightofthepurposesofcopyright.SeeLeval11101111;Patry&
Perlmutter,FairUseMisconstrued:Profit,Presumptions,andParody,11Cardozo
Arts&Ent.L.J.667,685687(1993)(hereinafterPatry&Perlmutter).[FN10]
FN9.SeeSenateReport,p.62("[W]hetherausereferredtointhefirst
sentenceofsection107isafairuseinaparticularcasewilldependupon
theapplicationofthedeterminativefactors").
FN10.Becausethefairuseenquiryoftenrequiresclosequestionsofjudgment
astotheextentofpermissibleborrowingincasesinvolvingparodies(or
othercriticalworks),courtsmayalsowishtobearinmindthatthegoalsof
thecopyrightlaw,"tostimulatethecreationandpublicationofedifying
matter,"Leval1134,arenotalwaysbestservedbyautomaticallygranting
injunctivereliefwhenparodistsarefoundtohavegonebeyondtheboundsof
fairuse.See17U.S.C.502(a)(court"may...grant...injunctionson
suchtermsasitmaydeemreasonabletopreventorrestraininfringement")
(emphasisadded);Leval1132(whileinthe"vastmajorityofcases,[an
injunctive]remedyisjustifiedbecausemostinfringementsaresimplepiracy,"
suchcasesare"worldsapartfrommanyofthoseraisingreasonablecontentions
offairuse"where"theremaybeastrongpublicinterestinthepublication
ofthesecondarywork[and]thecopyrightowner'sinterestmaybeadequately
protectedbyanawardofdamagesforwhateverinfringementisfound");Abend
v. MCA, Inc.,863F.2d1465,1479(CA91988)(finding"specialcircumstances"
thatwouldcause"greatinjustice"todefendantsand"publicinjury"were
injunctiontoissue),aff'dsub nom. Stewart v. Abend,495U.S.207,110S.Ct.

1750,109L.Ed.2d184(1990).
A
[3]
[4]Thefirstfactorinafairuseenquiryis"thepurposeandcharacterofthe
use,includingwhethersuchuseisofacommercialnatureorisfornonprofit
educationalpurposes."107(1).ThisfactordrawsonJusticeStory's
formulation,"thenatureandobjectsoftheselectionsmade."Folsom v. Marsh, supra,
at348.Theenquiryheremaybeguidedbytheexamplesgiveninthepreambleto
107,lookingtowhethertheuseisforcriticism,orcomment,ornewsreporting,
*579andthelike,see107.Thecentralpurposeofthisinvestigationistosee,
inJusticeStory'swords,whetherthenewworkmerely"supersede[s]theobjects"of
theoriginalcreation,Folsom v. Marsh, supra,at348;accord,Harper & Row, supra,471
U.S.,at562,105S.Ct.,at2231("supplanting"theoriginal),orinsteadadds
somethingnew,withafurtherpurposeordifferentcharacter,alteringthefirst
withnewexpression,meaning,ormessage;itasks,inotherwords,whetherandto
whatextentthenewworkis"transformative."Leval1111.Althoughsuch
transformativeuseisnotabsolutelynecessaryforafindingoffairuse,Sony,
supra,464U.S.,at455,n.40,104S.Ct.,at795,n.40,[FN11]thegoalof
copyright,topromotescienceandthearts,isgenerallyfurtheredbythecreation
oftransformativeworks.Suchworksthuslieattheheartofthefairuse
doctrine'sguaranteeofbreathingspacewithintheconfinesofcopyright,see,e.g.,
Sony, supra,at478480,104S.Ct.,at807808(BLACKMUN,J.,dissenting),andthe
moretransformativethenewwork,thelesswillbethesignificanceofother
factors,likecommercialism,thatmayweighagainstafindingoffairuse.
FN11.Theobviousstatutoryexceptiontothisfocusontransformativeusesis
thestraightreproductionofmultiplecopiesforclassroomdistribution.
[5]ThisCourthasonlyoncebeforeevenconsideredwhetherparodymaybefairuse,
andthattimeissuednoopinionbecauseoftheCourt'sequaldivision.Benny v.
Loew's Inc.,239F.2d532(CA91956),aff'dsub nom. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
Loew's Inc.,356U.S.43,78S.Ct.667,2L.Ed.2d583(1958).Sufficeittosaynow
thatparodyhasanobviousclaimtotransformativevalue,asAcuffRoseitselfdoes
notdeny.Likelessostensiblyhumorousformsofcriticism,itcanprovidesocial
benefit,bysheddinglightonanearlierwork,and,intheprocess,creatinganew
one.Wethuslineupwiththecourtsthathaveheldthatparody,likeothercomment
orcriticism,mayclaimfairuseunder107.See,e.g., Fisher v. Dees,794F.2d432
(CA91986)("WhenSonnySniffsGlue,"aparodyof"WhenSunnyGetsBlue,"isfair
use);*580Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co.,482F.Supp.741SDNY),aff'd,
623F.2d252(CA21980)("ILoveSodom,"a"Saturday**1172NightLive"television
parodyof"ILoveNewYork,"isfairuse);seealsoHouseReport,p.65;Senate
Report,p.61,U.S.CodeCong.&Admin.News1976,pp.5659,5678("[U]seinaparody
ofsomeofthecontentoftheworkparodied"maybefairuse).
[6]ThegermofparodyliesinthedefinitionoftheGreekparodeia,quotedinJudge
Nelson'sCourtofAppealsdissent,as"asongsungalongsideanother."972F.2d,at
1440,quoting7EncyclopediaBritannica768(15thed.1975).Moderndictionaries
accordinglydescribeaparodyasa"literaryorartisticworkthatimitatesthe
characteristicstyleofanauthororaworkforcomiceffectorridicule,"[FN12]
orasa"compositioninproseorverseinwhichthecharacteristicturnsofthought
andphraseinanauthororclassofauthorsareimitatedinsuchawayastomake
themappearridiculous."[FN13]Forthepurposesofcopyrightlaw,thenubofthe
definitions,andtheheartofanyparodist'sclaimtoquotefromexistingmaterial,

istheuseofsomeelementsofapriorauthor'scompositiontocreateanewone
that,atleastinpart,commentsonthatauthor'sworks.See,e.g., Fisher v. Dees,
supra,at437;MCA, Inc. v. Wilson,677F.2d180,185(CA21981).If,onthe
contrary,thecommentaryhasnocriticalbearingonthesubstanceorstyleofthe
originalcomposition,whichtheallegedinfringermerelyusestogetattentionorto
avoidthedrudgeryinworkingupsomethingfresh,theclaimtofairnessinborrowing
fromanother'sworkdiminishesaccordingly(ifitdoesnotvanish),andother
factors,liketheextentofitscommerciality,loomlarger.[FN14]Parodyneedsto
mimic*581anoriginaltomakeitspoint,andsohassomeclaimtousethecreation
ofitsvictim's(orcollectivevictims')imagination,whereassatirecanstandon
itsowntwofeetandsorequiresjustificationfortheveryactofborrowing.[FN15]
Seeibid.;Bisceglia,ParodyandCopyrightProtection:TurningtheBalancingAct
IntoaJugglingAct,inASCAP,CopyrightLawSymposium,No.34,p.25(1987).
FN12.AmericanHeritageDictionary1317(3ded.1992).
FN13.11OxfordEnglishDictionary247(2ded.1989).
FN14.Aparodythatmorelooselytargetsanoriginalthantheparodypresented
heremaystillbesufficientlyaimedatanoriginalworktocomewithinour
analysisofparody.Ifaparodywhosewidedisseminationinthemarketruns
theriskofservingasasubstitutefortheoriginalorlicensedderivatives
(seeinfraat11771179,discussingfactorfour),itismoreincumbentonone
claimingfairusetoestablishtheextentoftransformationandtheparody's
criticalrelationshiptotheoriginal.Bycontrast,whenthereislittleor
noriskofmarketsubstitution,whetherbecauseofthelargeextentof
transformationoftheearlierwork,thenewwork'sminimaldistributioninthe
market,thesmallextenttowhichitborrowsfromanoriginal,orother
factors,takingparodicaimatanoriginalisalesscriticalfactorinthe
analysis,andlooserformsofparodymaybefoundtobefairuse,asmay
satirewithlesserjustificationfortheborrowingthanwouldotherwisebe
required.
FN15.Satirehasbeendefinedasawork"inwhichprevalentfolliesorvices
areassailedwithridicule,"14OxfordEnglishDictionary,supra,at500,or
are"attackedthroughirony,derision,orwit,"AmericanHeritageDictionary,
supra,at1604.
Thefactthatparodycanclaimlegitimacyforsomeappropriationdoesnot,of
course,telleitherparodistorjudgemuchaboutwheretodrawtheline.Likea
bookreviewquotingthecopyrightedmaterialcriticized,parodymayormaynotbe
fairuse,andpetitioners'suggestionthatanyparodicuseispresumptivelyfairhas
nomorejustificationinlaworfactthantheequallyhopefulclaimthatanyusefor
newsreportingshouldbepresumedfair,seeHarper & Row,471U.S.,at561,105
S.Ct.,at2230.TheActhasnohintofanevidentiarypreferenceforparodists
overtheirvictims,andnoworkablepresumptionforparodycouldtakeaccountofthe
factthatparodyoftenshadesintosatirewhensocietyislampoonedthroughits
creativeartifacts,orthataworkmaycontainbothparodicandnonparodicelements.
Accordingly,parody,likeanyotheruse,hastoworkitswaythroughtherelevant
factors,andbejudgedcasebycase,inlightoftheendsofthecopyrightlaw.
Here,theDistrictCourtheld,andtheCourtofAppealsassumed,that2Live
**1173Crew's"PrettyWoman"containsparody,*582commentingonandcriticizing

theoriginalwork,whateveritmayhavetosayaboutsocietyatlarge.Asthe
DistrictCourtremarked,thewordsof2LiveCrew'ssongcopytheoriginal'sfirst
line,butthen"quicklydegenerat[e]intoaplayonwords,substitutingpredictable
lyricswithshockingones...[that]derisivelydemonstrat[e]howblandandbanal
theOrbisonsongseemstothem."754F.Supp.,at1155(footnoteomitted).Judge
Nelson,dissentingbelow,cametothesameconclusion,thatthe2LiveCrewsong
"wasclearlyintendedtoridiculethewhitebreadoriginal"and"remindsusthat
sexualcongresswithnamelessstreetwalkersisnotnecessarilythestuffofromance
andisnotnecessarilywithoutitsconsequences.Thesingers(thereareseveral)
havethesamethingontheirmindsasdidthelonelymanwiththenasalvoice,but
herethereisnohintofwineandroses."972F.2d,at1442.Althoughthe
majoritybelowhaddifficultydiscerninganycriticismoftheoriginalin2Live
Crew'ssong,itassumedforpurposesofitsopinionthattherewassome.Id.,at
14351436,andn.8.
[7]Wehavelessdifficultyinfindingthatcriticalelementin2LiveCrew'ssong
thantheCourtofAppealsdid,althoughhavingfounditwewillnottakethefurther
stepofevaluatingitsquality.Thethresholdquestionwhenfairuseisraisedin
defenseofparodyiswhetheraparodiccharactermayreasonablybeperceived.[FN16]
Whether,goingbeyondthat,parodyisingoodtasteorbaddoesnotandshouldnot
mattertofairuse.AsJusticeHolmesexplained,"[i]twouldbeadangerous
undertakingforpersonstrainedonlytothelawtoconstitutethemselvesfinal
judgesoftheworthof[awork],outsideofthenarrowestandmostobviouslimits.
At*583theoneextremesomeworksofgeniuswouldbesuretomissappreciation.
Theirverynoveltywouldmakethemrepulsiveuntilthepublichadlearnedthenew
languageinwhichtheirauthorspoke."Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.,188U.S.
239,251,23S.Ct.298,300,47L.Ed.460(1903)(circuspostershavecopyright
protection);cf.Yankee Publishing Inc. v. News America Publishing, Inc., 809F.Supp.267,
280(SDNY1992)(Leval,J.)("FirstAmendmentprotectionsdonotapplyonlytothose
whospeakclearly,whosejokesarefunny,andwhoseparodiessucceed")(trademark
case).
FN16.Theonlyfurtherjudgment,indeed,thatacourtmaypassonaworkgoes
toanassessmentofwhethertheparodicelementisslightorgreat,andthe
copyingsmallorextensiveinrelationtotheparodicelement,foraworkwith
slightparodicelementandextensivecopyingwillbemorelikelytomerely
"supersedetheobjects"oftheoriginal.Seeinfra,at117579,discussing
factorsthreeandfour.
Whilewemightnotassignahighranktotheparodicelementhere,wethinkitfair
tosaythat2LiveCrew'ssongreasonablycouldbeperceivedascommentingonthe
originalorcriticizingit,tosomedegree.2LiveCrewjuxtaposestheromantic
musingsofamanwhosefantasycomestrue,withdegradingtaunts,abawdydemandfor
sex,andasighofrelieffrompaternalresponsibility.Thelaterwordscanbe
takenasacommentonthenaivetoftheoriginalofanearlierday,asarejection
ofitssentimentthatignorestheuglinessofstreetlifeandthedebasementthatit
signifies.Itisthisjoinderofreferenceandridiculethatmarksoffthe
author'schoiceofparodyfromtheothertypesofcommentandcriticismthat
traditionallyhavehadaclaimtofairuseprotectionastransformativeworks.
[FN17]
FN17.Wenoteinpassingthat2LiveCrewneednotlabeltheirwholealbum,or
eventhissong,aparodyinordertoclaimfairuseprotection,norshould2

LiveCrewbepenalizedforthisbeingitsfirstparodicessay.Parodyserves
itsgoalswhetherlabeledornot,andthereisnoreasontorequireparodyto
statetheobvious(oreventhereasonablyperceived).SeePatry&Perlmutter
716717.
[8]
[9]TheCourtofAppeals,however,immediatelycutshorttheenquiryinto2Live
Crew'sfairuseclaimbyconfiningitstreatmentofthefirstfactoressentiallyto
onerelevantfact,thecommercialnatureoftheuse.Thecourttheninflatedthe
significanceofthisfactbyapplyingapresumptionostensibly*584**1174culled
fromSony,that"everycommercialuseofcopyrightedmaterialispresumptively...
unfair...."Sony,464U.S.,at451,104S.Ct.,at792.Ingivingvirtually
dispositiveweighttothecommercialnatureoftheparody,theCourtofAppeals
erred.
Thelanguageofthestatutemakesclearthatthecommercialornonprofit
educationalpurposeofaworkisonlyoneelementofthefirstfactorenquiryinto
itspurposeandcharacter.Section107(1)usestheterm"including"tobeginthe
dependentclausereferringtocommercialuse,andthemainclausespeaksofa
broaderinvestigationinto"purposeandcharacter."AsweexplainedinHarper &
Row,Congressresistedattemptstonarrowtheambitofthistraditionalenquiryby
adoptingcategoriesofpresumptivelyfairuse,anditurgedcourtstopreservethe
breadthoftheirtraditionallyampleviewoftheuniverseofrelevantevidence.471
U.S.,at561,105S.Ct.at2230;HouseReport,p.66,U.S.CodeCong.&Admin.News
1976,pp.5659,5679.Accordingly,themerefactthatauseiseducationalandnot
forprofitdoesnotinsulateitfromafindingofinfringement,anymorethanthe
commercialcharacterofausebarsafindingoffairness.If,indeed,
commercialitycarriedpresumptiveforceagainstafindingoffairness,the
presumptionwouldswallownearlyalloftheillustrativeuseslistedinthepreamble
paragraphof107,includingnewsreporting,comment,criticism,teaching,
scholarship,andresearch,sincetheseactivities"aregenerallyconductedfor
profitinthiscountry."Harper & Row, supra,at592,105S.Ct.,at2246(Brennan,
J.,dissenting).Congresscouldnothaveintendedsucharule,whichcertainlyis
notinferablefromthecommonlawcases,arisingastheydidfromtheworldof
lettersinwhichSamuelJohnsoncouldpronouncethat"[n]omanbutablockheadever
wrote,exceptformoney."3Boswell'sLifeofJohnson19(G.Hilled.1934).
Sonyitselfcalledfornohardevidentiarypresumption.There,weemphasizedthe
needfora"sensitivebalancingofinterests,"464U.S.,at455,n.40,104S.Ct.,
at795,n.40,notedthatCongresshad"eschewedarigid,brightlineapproachto
fairuse,"*585id.,at449,n.31,104S.Ct.,at792,n.31,andstatedthatthe
commercialornonprofiteducationalcharacterofaworkis"notconclusive,"id.,at
448449,104S.Ct.,at792,butratherafacttobe"weighedalongwithother[s]in
fairusedecisions,"id.,at449,n.32,104S.Ct.at792,n.32,(quotingHouse
Report,p.66)U.S.CodeCong.&Admin.News1976,pp.5659,5679.TheCourtof
Appeals'selevationofonesentencefromSonytoaper serulethusrunsasmuch
countertoSonyitselfastothelongcommonlawtraditionoffairuse
adjudication.Rather,asweexplainedinHarper & Row, Sonystandsforthe
propositionthatthe"factthatapublicationwascommercialasopposedtononprofit
isaseparatefactorthattendstoweighagainstafindingoffairuse."471U.S.,
at562,105S.Ct.,at2231.Butthatisall,andthefactthateventheforceof
thattendencywillvarywiththecontextisafurtherreasonagainstelevating
commercialitytohardpresumptivesignificance.Theuse,forexample,ofa
copyrightedworktoadvertiseaproduct,eveninaparody,willbeentitledtoless

indulgenceunderthefirstfactorofthefairuseenquirythanthesaleofaparody
foritsownsake,letaloneoneperformedasingletimebystudentsinschool.See
generallyPatry&Perlmutter679680;Fisher v. Dees,794F.2d,at437;MaxtoneGraham v. Burtchaell,803F.2d1253,1262(CA21986);Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade,
Inc.,977F.2d1510,1522(CA91992).[FN18]
FN18.Finally,regardlessoftheweightonemightplaceonthealleged
infringer'sstateofmind,compareHarper & Row,471U.S.,at562,105S.Ct.,
at2231(fairusepresupposesgoodfaithandfairdealing)(quotationmarks
omitted),withFolsom v. Marsh,9F.Cas.342,349(No.4,901)(CCDMass.1841)
(goodfaithdoesnotbarafindingofinfringement);Leval11261127(good
faithirrelevanttofairuseanalysis),werejectAcuffRose'sargumentthat2
LiveCrew'srequestforpermissiontousetheoriginalshouldbeweighed
againstafindingoffairuse.Evenifgoodfaithwerecentraltofairuse,
2LiveCrew'sactionsdonotnecessarilysuggestthattheybelievedtheir
versionwasnotfairuse;theoffermaysimplyhavebeenmadeinagoodfaith
efforttoavoidthislitigation.Iftheuseisotherwisefair,thenno
permissionneedbesoughtorgranted.Thus,beingdeniedpermissiontousea
workdoesnotweighagainstafindingoffairuse.SeeFisher v. Dees,794
F.2d432,437(CA91986).
**1175*586B
[10]Thesecondstatutoryfactor,"thenatureofthecopyrightedwork,"107(2),
drawsonJusticeStory'sexpression,the"valueofthematerialsused."Folsom v.
Marsh,9F.Cas.,at348.Thisfactorcallsforrecognitionthatsomeworksare
closertothecoreofintendedcopyrightprotectionthanothers,withthe
consequencethatfairuseismoredifficulttoestablishwhentheformerworksare
copied.See,e.g., Stewart v. Abend,495U.S.,at237238,110S.Ct.,at17681769
(contrastingfictionalshortstorywithfactualworks);Harper & Row,471U.S.,at
563564,105S.Ct.,at22312233(contrastingsoontobepublishedmemoirwith
publishedspeech);Sony,464U.S.,at455,n.40,104S.Ct.,at792,n.40
(contrastingmotionpictureswithnewsbroadcasts);Feist,499U.S.,at348351,111
S.Ct.,at12891291(contrastingcreativeworkswithbarefactualcompilations);3
M.Nimmer&D.Nimmer,NimmeronCopyright13.05[A][2](1993)(hereinafter
Nimmer);Leval1116.WeagreewithboththeDistrictCourtandtheCourtof
AppealsthattheOrbisonoriginal'screativeexpressionforpublicdissemination
fallswithinthecoreofthecopyright'sprotectivepurposes.754F.Supp.,at1155
1156;972F.2d,at1437.Thisfact,however,isnotmuchhelpinthiscase,or
everlikelytohelpmuchinseparatingthefairusesheepfromtheinfringinggoats
inaparodycase,sinceparodiesalmostinvariablycopypubliclyknown,expressive
works.
C
[11]Thethirdfactoraskswhether"theamountandsubstantialityoftheportion
usedinrelationtothecopyrightedworkasawhole,"107(3)(or,inJustice
Story'swords,"thequantityandvalueofthematerialsused,"Folsom v. Marsh, supra,
at348)arereasonableinrelationtothepurposeofthecopying.Here,attention
turnstothepersuasivenessofaparodist'sjustificationfortheparticularcopying
done,andtheenquirywillharkenbacktothefirstofthestatutoryfactors,for,
asinpriorcases,werecognizethattheextentofpermissiblecopyingvarieswith
thepurposeandcharacter*587oftheuse.SeeSony, supra,464U.S.,at449450,
104S.Ct.,at792793(reproductionofentirework"doesnothaveitsordinary
effectofmilitatingagainstafindingoffairuse"astohomevideotapingof

televisionprograms);Harper & Row, supra,471U.S.,at564,105S.Ct.,at2232

("[E]vensubstantialquotationsmightqualifyasfairuseinareviewofapublished
workoranewsaccountofaspeech"butnotinascoopofasoontobepublished
memoir).Thefactsbearingonthisfactorwillalsotendtoaddressthefourth,by
revealingthedegreetowhichtheparodymayserveasamarketsubstituteforthe
originalorpotentiallylicensedderivatives.SeeLeval1123.
TheDistrictCourtconsideredthesong'sparodicpurposeinfindingthat2Live
Crewhadnothelpedthemselvesovermuch.754F.Supp.,at11561157.TheCourtof
Appealsdisagreed,statingthat"[w]hileitmaynotbeinappropriatetofindthatno
morewastakenthannecessary,thecopyingwasqualitativelysubstantial....We
concludethattakingtheheartoftheoriginalandmakingittheheartofanewwork
wastopurloinasubstantialportionoftheessenceoftheoriginal."972F.2d,at
1438.
TheCourtofAppealsisofcoursecorrectthatthisfactorcallsforthoughtnot
onlyaboutthequantityofthematerialsused,butabouttheirqualityand
importance,too.InHarper & Row,forexample,theNationhadtakenonlysome300
wordsoutofPresidentFord'smemoirs,butwesignaledthesignificanceofthe
quotationsinfindingthemtoamountto"theheartofthebook,"thepartmost
likelytobenewsworthyandimportantinlicensingserialization.471U.S.,at564
566,568,105S.Ct.,at22322234,2234(internalquotationmarksomitted).We
alsoagreewiththeCourtofAppealsthatwhether"asubstantialportionofthe
infringingwork**1176wascopiedverbatim"fromthecopyrightedworkisarelevant
question,seeid.,at565,105S.Ct.,at2232,foritmayrevealadearthof
transformativecharacterorpurposeunderthefirstfactor,oragreaterlikelihood
ofmarketharmunderthefourth;aworkcomposedprimarilyofanoriginal,
particularlyitsheart,withlittleaddedorchanged,*588ismorelikelytobea
merelysupersedinguse,fulfillingdemandfortheoriginal.
Wherewepartcompanywiththecourtbelowisinapplyingtheseguidestoparody,
andinparticulartoparodyinthesongbeforeus.Parodypresentsadifficult
case.Parody'shumor,orinanyeventitscomment,necessarilyspringsfrom
recognizableallusiontoitsobjectthroughdistortedimitation.Itsartliesinthe
tensionbetweenaknownoriginalanditsparodictwin.Whenparodytakesaimata
particularoriginalwork,theparodymustbeableto"conjureup"atleastenoughof
thatoriginaltomaketheobjectofitscriticalwitrecognizable.See,e.g.,
Elsmere Music,623F.2d,at253,n.1;Fisher v. Dees,794F.2d,at438439.What
makesforthisrecognitionisquotationoftheoriginal'smostdistinctiveor
memorablefeatures,whichtheparodistcanbesuretheaudiencewillknow.Once
enoughhasbeentakentoassureidentification,howmuchmoreisreasonablewill
depend,say,ontheextenttowhichthesong'soverridingpurposeandcharacteris
toparodytheoriginalor,incontrast,thelikelihoodthattheparodymayserveas
amarketsubstitutefortheoriginal.Butusingsomecharacteristicfeatures
cannotbeavoided.
[12]WethinktheCourtofAppealswasinsufficientlyappreciativeofparody'sneed
fortherecognizablesightorsoundwhenitruled2LiveCrew'suseunreasonableas
amatteroflaw.Itistrue,ofcourse,that2LiveCrewcopiedthecharacteristic
openingbassriff(ormusicalphrase)oftheoriginal,andtruethatthewordsof
thefirstlinecopytheOrbisonlyrics.Butifquotationoftheopeningriffand
thefirstlinemaybesaidtogotothe"heart"oftheoriginal,theheartisalso
whatmostreadilyconjuresupthesongforparody,anditistheheartatwhich

parodytakesaim.Copyingdoesnotbecomeexcessiveinrelationtoparodicpurpose
merelybecausetheportiontakenwastheoriginal'sheart.If2LiveCrewhad
copiedasignificantlylessmemorablepartoftheoriginal,itisdifficulttosee
howitsparodiccharacter*589wouldhavecomethrough.SeeFisher v. Dees, supra,at
439.
[13]Thisisnot,ofcourse,tosaythatanyonewhocallshimselfaparodistcan
skimthecreamandgetawayscotfree.Inparody,asinnewsreporting,seeHarper
& Row, supra,contextiseverything,andthequestionoffairnessaskswhatelsethe
parodistdidbesidesgototheheartoftheoriginal.Itissignificantthat2
LiveCrewnotonlycopiedthefirstlineoftheoriginal,butthereafterdeparted
markedlyfromtheOrbisonlyricsforitsownends.2LiveCrewnotonlycopiedthe
bassriffandrepeatedit,[FN19]butalsoproducedotherwisedistinctivesounds,
interposing"scraper"noise,overlayingthemusicwithsolosindifferentkeys,and
alteringthedrumbeat.See754F.Supp.,at1155.Thisisnotacase,then,
where"asubstantialportion"oftheparodyitselfiscomposedofa"verbatim"
copyingoftheoriginal.Itisnot,thatis,acasewheretheparodyisso
insubstantial,ascomparedtothecopying,thatthethirdfactormustberesolvedas
amatteroflawagainsttheparodists.
FN19.Thismayservetoheightenthecomiceffectoftheparody,asone
witnessstated,App.32a,AffidavitofOscarBrand;seealsoElsmere Music,
Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co.,482F.Supp.741,747(SDNY1980)(repetitionof
"ILoveSodom"),orservetodazzlewiththeoriginal'smusic,asAcuffRose
nowcontends.
Sufficeittosayherethat,astothelyrics,wethinktheCourtofAppeals
correctlysuggestedthat"nomorewastakenthannecessary,"972F.2d,at1438,but
justforthatreason,wefailtoseehowthecopyingcanbeexcessiveinrelationto
itsparodicpurpose,eveniftheportiontakenistheoriginal's"heart."Asto
themusic,weexpressnoopinionwhetherrepetitionofthebassriffisexcessive
copying,andweremandtopermit**1177evaluationoftheamounttaken,inlightof
thesong'sparodicpurposeandcharacter,itstransformativeelements,and
considerationsofthepotentialformarketsubstitutionsketchedmorefullybelow.
*590D
[14]Thefourthfairusefactoris"theeffectoftheuseuponthepotentialmarket
fororvalueofthecopyrightedwork."107(4).Itrequirescourtstoconsider
notonlytheextentofmarketharmcausedbytheparticularactionsofthealleged
infringer,butalso"whetherunrestrictedandwidespreadconductofthesortengaged
inbythedefendant...wouldresultinasubstantiallyadverseimpactonthe
potentialmarket"fortheoriginal.Nimmer13.05[A][4],p.13102.61(footnote
omitted);accord,Harper & Row,471U.S.,at569,105S.Ct.,at2235;Senate
Report,p.65;Folsom v. Marsh,9F.Cas.,at349.Theenquiry"musttakeaccount
notonlyofharmtotheoriginalbutalsoofharmtothemarketforderivative
works."Harper & Row, supra,471U.S.at568,105S.Ct.,at2234.
[15]Sincefairuseisanaffirmativedefense,[FN20]itsproponentwouldhave
difficultycarryingtheburdenofdemonstratingfairusewithoutfavorableevidence
aboutrelevantmarkets.[FN21]Inmovingforsummaryjudgment,2LiveCrewleft
themselvesatjustsuchadisadvantagewhentheyfailedtoaddresstheeffectonthe
marketforrapderivatives,andconfinedthemselvestouncontrovertedsubmissions
thattherewasnolikelyeffectonthemarketfortheoriginal.Theydidnot,

however,therebysubjectthemselvestotheevidentiarypresumptionappliedbythe
CourtofAppeals.Inassessingthelikelihoodofsignificantmarketharm,the
CourtofAppeals*591quotedfromlanguageinSonythat"'[i]ftheintendeduseis
forcommercialgain,thatlikelihoodmaybepresumed.Butifitisfora
noncommercialpurpose,thelikelihoodmustbedemonstrated.'"972F.2d,at1438,
quotingSony,464U.S.,at451,104S.Ct.,at104S.Ct.,at793.Thecourt
reasonedthatbecause"theuseofthecopyrightedworkiswhollycommercial,...we
presumethatalikelihoodoffutureharmtoAcuffRoseexists."972F.2d,at1438.
Insodoing,thecourtresolvedthefourthfactoragainst2LiveCrew,justasit
hadthefirst,byapplyingapresumptionabouttheeffectofcommercialuse,a
presumptionwhichasappliedhereweholdtobeerror.
FN20.Harper & Row,471U.S.,at561,105S.Ct.,at2230;H.R.Rep.No.102
836,p.3,n.3(1992).
FN21.Evenfavorableevidence,withoutmore,isnoguaranteeoffairness.
JudgeLevalgivestheexampleofthefilmproducer'sappropriationofa
composer'spreviouslyunknownsongthatturnsthesongintoacommercial
success;theboontothesongdoesnotmakethefilm'ssimplecopyingfair.
Leval1124,n.84.Thisfactor,nolessthantheotherthree,maybe
addressedonlythrougha"sensitivebalancingofinterests."Sony Corp. of
America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,464U.S.417,455,n.40,104S.Ct.774,
795,n.40,78L.Ed.2d574(1984).Marketharmisamatterofdegree,andthe
importanceofthisfactorwillvary,notonlywiththeamountofharm,but
alsowiththerelativestrengthoftheshowingontheotherfactors.
No"presumption"orinferenceofmarketharmthatmightfindsupportinSonyis
applicabletoacaseinvolvingsomethingbeyondmereduplicationforcommercial
purposes.Sony'sdiscussionofapresumptioncontrastsacontextofverbatim
copyingoftheoriginalinitsentiretyforcommercialpurposes,withthe
noncommercialcontextofSonyitself(homecopyingoftelevisionprogramming).In
theformercircumstances,whatSonysaidsimplymakescommonsense:whena
commercialuseamountstomereduplicationoftheentiretyofanoriginal,it
clearly"supersede[s]theobjects,"Folsom v. Marsh, supra,at348,oftheoriginaland
servesasamarketreplacementforit,makingitlikelythatcognizablemarketharm
totheoriginalwilloccur.Sony, supra,464U.S.,at451,104S.Ct.,at793.But
when,onthecontrary,theseconduseistransformative,marketsubstitutionisat
leastlesscertain,andmarketharmmaynotbesoreadilyinferred.Indeed,asto
parodypureandsimple,itismorelikelythatthenewworkwillnotaffectthe
marketfortheoriginalinawaycognizableunderthisfactor,thatis,byactingas
asubstituteforit("supersed[ing]**1178[its]objects").SeeLeval1125;
Patry&Perlmutter692,697698.Thisissobecausetheparodyandtheoriginal
usuallyservedifferentmarketfunctions.Bisceglia,ASCAP,CopyrightLaw
Symposium,No.34,at23.
[16]Wedonot,ofcourse,suggestthataparodymaynotharmthemarketatall,
butwhenalethalparody,likeascathing*592theaterreview,killsdemandforthe
original,itdoesnotproduceaharmcognizableundertheCopyrightAct.Because
"parodymayquitelegitimatelyaimatgarrotingtheoriginal,destroyingit
commerciallyaswellasartistically,"B.Kaplan,AnUnhurriedViewofCopyright69
(1967),theroleofthecourtsistodistinguishbetween"[b]itingcriticism[that
merely]suppressesdemand[and]copyrightinfringement[,which]usurpsit."Fisher
v. Dees,794F.2d,at438.

Thisdistinctionbetweenpotentiallyremediabledisplacementandunremediable
disparagementisreflectedintherulethatthereisnoprotectiblederivative
marketforcriticism.Themarketforpotentialderivativeusesincludesonlythose
thatcreatorsoforiginalworkswouldingeneraldeveloporlicenseothersto
develop.Yettheunlikelihoodthatcreatorsofimaginativeworkswilllicense
criticalreviewsorlampoonsoftheirownproductionsremovessuchusesfromthe
verynotionofapotentiallicensingmarket."Peopleask...forcriticism,but
theyonlywantpraise."S.Maugham,OfHumanBondage241(Penguined.1992).Thus,
totheextentthattheopinionbelowmaybereadtohaveconsideredharmtothe
marketforparodiesof"Oh,PrettyWoman,"see972F.2d,at1439,thecourterred.
Accord,Fisher v. Dees, supra,at437;Leval1125;Patry&Perlmutter688691.[FN22]
FN22.Weexpressnoopinionastothederivativemarketsforworksusing
elementsofanoriginalasvehiclesforsatireoramusement,makingnocomment
ontheoriginalorcriticismofit.
[17]
[18]Inexplainingwhythelawrecognizesnoderivativemarketforcritical
works,includingparody,wehave,ofcourse,beenspeakingofthelaterworkasif
ithadnothingbutacriticalaspect(i.e.,"parodypureandsimple,"supra,at1177).
Butthelaterworkmayhaveamorecomplexcharacter,witheffectsnotonlyinthe
arenaofcriticismbutalsoinprotectiblemarketsforderivativeworks,too.In
thatsortofcase,thelawlooksbeyondthecriticismtotheotherelementsofthe
work,asitdoeshere.2LiveCrew'ssongcomprisesnot*593onlyparodybutalso
rapmusic,andthederivativemarketforrapmusicisaproperfocusofenquiry,see
Harper & Row, supra,471U.S.,at568,105S.Ct.,at2234;Nimmer13.05[B].
Evidenceofsubstantialharmtoitwouldweighagainstafindingoffairuse,[FN23]
becausethelicensingofderivativesisanimportanteconomicincentivetothe
creationoforiginals.See17U.S.C.106(2)(copyrightownerhasrightsto
derivativeworks).Ofcourse,theonlyharmtoderivativesthatneedconcernus,
asdiscussedabove,istheharmofmarketsubstitution.Thefactthataparodymay
impairthemarketforderivativeusesbytheveryeffectivenessofitscritical
commentaryisnomorerelevantundercopyrightthanthelikethreattotheoriginal
market.[FN24]
FN23.SeeNimmer13.05[A][4],p.13102.61("asubstantiallyadverseimpact
onthepotentialmarket");Leval1125("reasonablysubstantial"harm);Patry
&Perlmutter697698(same).
FN24.Insomecasesitmaybedifficulttodeterminewhencetheharmflows.
Insuchcases,theotherfairusefactorsmayprovidesomeindiciaofthe
likelysourceoftheharm.Aworkwhoseoverridingpurposeandcharacteris
parodicandwhoseborrowingisslightinrelationtoitsparodywillbefar
lesslikelytocausecognizableharmthanaworkwithlittleparodiccontent
andmuchcopying.
[19]Although2LiveCrewsubmitteduncontrovertedaffidavitsonthequestionof
marketharmtotheoriginal,neitherthey,norAcuffRose,introducedevidenceor
affidavitsaddressingthelikelyeffectof2LiveCrew'sparodicrapsongonthe
marketforanonparody,rapversionof"Oh,PrettyWoman."AndwhileAcuffRose
wouldhaveusfindevidenceofarapmarketintheveryfactsthat2LiveCrew
recordedarapparodyof"Oh,PrettyWoman"andanotherrapgroupsoughtalicense
torecordarapderivative,**1179therewasnoevidencethatapotentialrap

marketwasharmedinanywayby2LiveCrew'sparody,rapversion.Thefactthat2
LiveCrew'sparodysoldaspartofacollectionofrapsongssaysverylittleabout
theparody'seffectonamarketforarapversionoftheoriginal,eitherofthe
musicaloneorofthemusicwithitslyrics.TheDistrictCourtessentiallypassed
*594onthisissue,observingthatAcuffRoseisfreetorecord"whateverversion
oftheoriginalitdesires,"754F.Supp.,at1158;theCourtofAppealswentthe
otherwaybyerroneouspresumption.Contrarytoeachtreatment,itisimpossible
todealwiththefourthfactorexceptbyrecognizingthatasilentrecordonan
importantfactorbearingonfairusedisentitledtheproponentofthedefense,2
LiveCrew,tosummaryjudgment.Theevidentiaryholewilldoubtlessbepluggedon
remand.
III
ItwaserrorfortheCourtofAppealstoconcludethatthecommercialnatureof2
LiveCrew'sparodyof"Oh,PrettyWoman"rendereditpresumptivelyunfair.Nosuch
evidentiarypresumptionisavailabletoaddresseitherthefirstfactor,the
characterandpurposeoftheuse,orthefourth,marketharm,indeterminingwhether
atransformativeuse,suchasparody,isafairone.Thecourtalsoerredinholding
that2LiveCrewhadnecessarilycopiedexcessivelyfromtheOrbisonoriginal,
consideringtheparodicpurposeoftheuse.Wethereforereversethejudgmentof
theCourtofAppealsandremandthecaseforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwith
thisopinion.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIXATOOPINIONOFTHECOURT
"Oh,PrettyWoman"byRoyOrbisonandWilliamDees
PrettyWoman,walkingdownthestreet,
PrettyWoman,thekindIliketomeet,
PrettyWoman,Idon'tbelieveyou,you'renotthetruth,
Noonecouldlookasgoodasyou
Mercy
PrettyWoman,won'tyoupardonme,
PrettyWoman,Icouldn'thelpbutsee,
*595PrettyWoman,thatyoulooklovelyascanbe
Areyoulonelyjustlikeme?
PrettyWoman,stopawhile,
PrettyWoman,talkawhile,
PrettyWomangiveyoursmiletome
PrettyWoman,yeah,yeah,yeah
PrettyWoman,lookmyway,
PrettyWoman,sayyou'llstaywithme
'CauseIneedyou,I'lltreatyouright
Cometomebaby,Beminetonight
PrettyWoman,don'twalkonby,
PrettyWoman,don'tmakemecry,
PrettyWoman,don'twalkaway,
Hey,O.K.
Ifthat'sthewayitmustbe,O.K.
IguessI'llgoonhome,it'slate
There'llbetomorrownight,butwait!
WhatdoIsee
Isshewalkingbacktome?

Yeah,she'swalkingbacktome!
Oh,PrettyWoman.
APPENDIXBTOOPINIONOFTHECOURT
"PrettyWoman"asRecordedby2LiveCrew
Prettywomanwalkin'downthestreet
Prettywomangirlyoulooksosweet
Prettywomanyoubringmedowntothatknee
Prettywomanyoumakemewannabegplease
Oh,prettywoman
Bighairywomanyouneedtoshavethatstuff
BighairywomanyouknowIbetit'stough
Bighairywomanallthathairitain'tlegit
*596'Causeyoulooklike'CousinIt'
Bighairywoman
**1180Baldheadedwomangirlyourhairwon'tgrow
Baldheadedwomanyougotateenyweenyafro
Baldheadedwomanyouknowyourhaircouldlooknice
Baldheadedwomanfirstyougottorollitwithrice
Baldheadedwomanhere,letmegetthishunkofbizforya
YaknowwhatI'msayingyoulookbetterthanricearoni
Ohbaldheadedwoman
Bighairywomancomeonin
Anddon'tforgetyourbaldheadedfriend
Heyprettywomanlettheboys
Jumpin
Twotimin'womangirlyouknowyouain'tright
Twotimin'womanyou'soutwithmyboylastnight
Twotimin'womanthattakesaloadoffmymind
Twotimin'womannowIknowthebabyain'tmine
Oh,twotimin'woman
Ohprettywoman
JusticeKENNEDY,concurring.
IagreethatremandisappropriateandjointheopinionoftheCourt,withthese
furtherobservationsaboutthefairuseanalysisofparody.
Thecommonlawmethodinstatedbythefairuseprovisionofthecopyrightstatute,
17U.S.C.107(1988ed.andSupp.IV),presumesthatruleswillemergefromthe
courseofdecisions.Iagreethatcertaingeneralprinciplesarenowdiscernible
todefinethefairuseexceptionforparody.Oneoftheserules,astheCourt
observes,isthatparodymayqualifyasfairuseregardlessofwhetheritis
publishedorperformed*597forprofit.Ante,at1178.Anotheristhatparodymay
qualifyasfairuseonlyifitdrawsupontheoriginalcompositiontomakehumorous
orironiccommentaryaboutthatsamecomposition.Ante,at1172.Itisnotenough
thattheparodyusetheoriginalinahumorousfashion,howevercreativethathumor
maybe.Theparodymusttargettheoriginal,andnotjustitsgeneralstyle,the
genreofarttowhichitbelongs,orsocietyasawhole(althoughifittargetsthe
original,itmaytargetthosefeaturesaswell).SeeRogers v. Koons,960F.2d301,
310(CA21992)("[T]houghthesatireneednotbeonlyofthecopiedworkandmay...
alsobeaparodyofmodernsociety,thecopiedworkmustbe,atleastinpart,an
objectoftheparody");Fisher v. Dees,794F.2d432,436(CA91986)("[A]humorous

orsatiricworkdeservesprotectionunderthefairusedoctrineonlyifthecopied
workisatleastpartlythetargetoftheworkinquestion").Thisprerequisite
confinesfairuseprotectiontoworkswhoseverysubjectistheoriginalcomposition
andsonecessitatessomeborrowingfromit.SeeMCA, Inc. v. Wilson,677F.2d180,
185(CA21981)("[I]fthecopyrightedsongisnotatleastinpartanobjectofthe
parody,thereisnoneedtoconjureitup");Bisceglia,ParodyandCopyright
Protection:TurningtheBalancingActIntoaJugglingAct,inASCAP,CopyrightLaw
Symposium,No.34,pp.2329(1987).Italsoprotectsworkswehavereasontofear
willnotbelicensedbycopyrightholderswhowishtoshieldtheirworksfrom
criticism.SeeFisher, supra,at437("Selfesteemisseldomstrongenoughtopermit
thegrantingofpermissioneveninexchangeforareasonablefee");Posner,WhenIs
ParodyFairUse?,21J.LegalStudies67,73(1992)("Thereisanobstructionwhen
theparodiedworkisatargetoftheparodist'scriticism,foritmaybeinthe
privateinterestofthecopyrightowner,butnotinthesocialinterest,tosuppress
criticismofthework")(emphasisdeleted).
Ifwekeepthedefinitionofparodywithintheselimits,wehavegonemostofthe
waytowardssatisfyingthefourfactor*598fairusetestin107.Thefirst
factor(thepurposeandcharacterofuse)itselfconcernsthedefinitionofparody.
Thesecondfactor(thenatureofthecopyrightedwork)addslittletothefirst,
since"parodiesalmostinvariably**1181copypubliclyknown,expressiveworks."
Ante,at1175.Thethirdfactor(theamountandsubstantialityoftheportionused
inrelationtothewhole)islikewisesubsumedwithinthedefinitionofparody.In
determiningwhetheranallegedparodyhastakentoomuch,thetargetoftheparody
iswhatgivescontenttotheinquiry.Someparodies,bytheirnature,require
substantialcopying.SeeElsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co.,623F.2d252
(CA21980)(holdingthat"ILoveSodom"skiton"SaturdayNightLive"islegitimate
parodyofthe"ILoveNewYork"campaign).Otherparodies,likeLewisCarroll's
"YouAreOld,FatherWilliam,"needonlytakepartsoftheoriginalcomposition.
Thethirdfactordoesreinforcetheprinciplethatcourtsshouldnotaccordfairuse
protectiontoprofiteerswhodonomorethanaddafewsillywordstosomeoneelse's
songorplacethecharactersfromafamiliarworkinnoveloreccentricposes.
See,e.g., Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates,581F.2d751(CA91978);DC Comics Inc. v.
Unlimited Monkey Business, Inc.,598F.Supp.110(NDGa.1984).But,asIbelievethe
Courtacknowledges,ante,at117677,itisbynomeansatestofmechanical
application.Inmyview,itservesineffecttoensurecompliancewiththe
targetingrequirement.
Astothefourthfactor(theeffectoftheuseonthemarketfortheoriginal),the
Courtacknowledgesthatitislegitimateforparodytosuppressdemandforthe
originalbyitscriticaleffect.Ante,at117778.Whatitmaynotdoisusurp
demandbyitssubstitutiveeffect.Ibid.Itwillbedifficult,ofcourse,for
courtstodeterminewhetherharmtothemarketresultsfromaparody'scriticalor
substitutiveeffects.Butagain,ifwekeepthedefinitionofparodywithin
appropriatebounds,thisinquirymaybeoflittlesignificance.Ifaworktargets
anotherforhumorousorironiceffect,itisbydefinition*599anewcreative
work.Creativeworkscancompetewithothercreativeworksforthesamemarket,
eveniftheirappealisoverlapping.Factorfourthusunderscorestheimportance
ofensuringthattheparodyisinfactanindependentcreativework,whichiswhy
theparodymust"makesomecriticalcommentorstatementabouttheoriginalwork
whichreflectstheoriginalperspectiveoftheparodisttherebygivingtheparody
socialvaluebeyonditsentertainmentfunction."Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Showcase
Atlanta Cooperative Productions, Inc.,479F.Supp.351,357(NDGa.1979).

Thefairusefactorsthusreinforcetheimportanceofkeepingthedefinitionof
parodywithinproperlimits.Morethanarguableparodiccontentshouldberequired
todeemawouldbeparodyafairuse.Fairuseisanaffirmativedefense,so
doubtsaboutwhetheragivenuseisfairshouldnotberesolvedinfavorofthe
selfproclaimedparodist.Weshouldnotmakeiteasyformusicianstoexploit
existingworksandthenlaterclaimthattheirrenditionwasavaluablecommentary
ontheoriginal.Almostanyrevampedmodernversionofafamiliarcompositioncan
beconstruedasa"commentonthenaivetoftheoriginal,"ante,at1173,because
ofthedifferenceinstyleandbecauseitwillbeamusingtohearhowtheoldtune
soundsinthenewgenre.JustthethoughtofarapversionofBeethoven'sFifth
Symphonyor"AchyBreakyHeart"isboundtomakepeoplesmile.Ifweallowany
weaktransformationtoqualifyasparody,however,weweakentheprotectionof
copyright.Andunderprotectionofcopyrightdisservesthegoalsofcopyrightjust
asmuchasoverprotection,byreducingthefinancialincentivetocreate.
TheCourtdecidesitis"fairtosaythat2LiveCrew'ssongreasonablycouldbe
perceivedascommentingontheoriginalorcriticizingit,tosomedegree."Ibid.
(applyingthefirstfairusefactor).WhileIamnotsoassuredthat2LiveCrew's
songisalegitimateparody,theCourt'streatmentof*600the**1182remaining
factorsleavesroomfortheDistrictCourttodetermineonremandthatthesongis
notafairuse.Asfuturecourtsapplyourfairuseanalysis,theymusttakecare
toensurethatnotjustanycommercialtakeoffisrationalizedpost hocasaparody.
Withtheseobservations,IjointheopinionoftheCourt.
510U.S.569,114S.Ct.1164,127L.Ed.2d500,62USLW4169,1994Copr.L.Dec.P
27,222,29U.S.P.Q.2d1961,22MediaL.Rep.1353
Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top)
1993WL757656(OralArgument)OralArgument(Nov.09,1993)
1993WL638228(AppellateBrief)REPLYBRIEFONTHEMERITSFORPETITIONERS(Aug.
04,1993)
1993WL391058(AppellateBrief)BRIEFONTHEMERITSFORRESPONDENT(Jun.28,
1993)
1993WL391046(AppellateBrief)BRIEFONTHEMERITSFORPETITIONERS(May.28,
1993)
ENDOFDOCUMENT