CASE BRIEF

 Style of Case and Citation:

Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Co. 510 U.S. 569 (1994)

 Court Rendering Final Decision:

U.S. Supreme Court

 Identification of Parties and Procedural Details:

Acuff-Rose Music, Inc (plaintiff) sued 2 Live Crew (defendant) because of copyright infringement. District Court of appeals held that the commercial nature of the parody made its acceptance unfair. The court also felt that 2 Live Crew took the heart of the original and made the heart of a new piece of work. Meaning 2 Live Crew had based on some quality copied excessively from the original piece of work. Court. 2 Live Crew appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 Discussion of the Facts: Who did what to whom? What relief is being sought?

Acuff-Rose Music, Inc claims that a parody of copyrighted work is not fair use if the parody has a commercial purpose and copies the heart of the original. The court wanted to try and leave some type of platform in the law for the creation of legitimate parodies of copyrighted work.

 Statement and Discussion of the Legal Issues in Dispute: What decision of the lower court is being challenged? What specific legal questions is the subject court being asked to address? Is the question about Common-Law? A Statute?

Acuff-Rose Music Inc is challenging the Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the district court believe the rap version was in fact a fair use and by doing so granted judgment in favor of 2 Live Crew. The specific legal question of the court being addressed is can a parody of a copyrighted work be fair use if the parody has a commercial purpose and copies the heart of the original. Leading to question the purpose and the character of the use of a commercial nature for profit or would it be for nonprofit education purposes. The question is about statutes.

 Subject Court Final Decision: For Plaintiff? For Defendant? What happens next?

For defendant 2 Live Crew, Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. appealed. The next step would be to determine whether borrowing copyrighted work is fair use, for purposes of parody and measure the borrowings against the four factors of 107 of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.).

 Summary of This Final Court’s Reasoning: What is the legal basis for the court’s decision? Be sure to include relevant Dissenting Opinions.

The court found that 2 Live Crew’s song could be entitled to the fair use defense because the song could easily perceived as talking about or criticizing the original song. The court also felt that when 2 Live Crew copied the heart of the original the court had to also consider that the parody version veered from the original work for its own purpose.
The court felt that 2 Live Crew’s song was comprised of not only criticism but it also composed of rap music. The court also had made note that in a previous instance when it had to consider whether or not a parody might be fair use the court had not issued an opinion.
The courts had to address the last factor regarding the impact of the market of rap music. There wasn’t enough evidence to address the issue so since there wasn’t enough evidence 2 Live Crew wasn’t entitled to summary judgment.

 Business Impact of the Case: How does the result affect US businesses and their policies and practices? How should management react to the decision in this case in order to avoid future problems, or take advantage of such a situations?

Being that the court took the ground that the goal of copyrighting in favor of 2 Live Crew as fair use because the parody could provide in a way of social benefit by exposing light to the work that is being copied and in the process create a new version. This is an advantage to artists because the courts left room in the law for legal creativity of copyrighted work.