Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. owned the copyright in Roy Orbison and William Dees's song "Oh, Pretty Woman." Luther Campbell and the rap group 2 Live Crew wrote and recorded a new song titled "Pretty Woman," which mimicked the original's distinctive opening bass riff and opening lyric to signal the source but then pivoted to bawdy, comedic lyrics and a hip-hop sound intended to lampoon the original's sentiments. Before releasing their recording, 2 Live Crew requested a license, which Acuff-Rose refused. Nonetheless, 2 Live Crew released the song commercially as a parody. Acuff-Rose sued Campbell, his group, and associated entities for copyright infringement in federal court. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on fair use grounds, finding the parody transformative and not harmful to the market for the original. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the commercial nature of the use created a presumption of market harm under Sony v. Universal and that 2 Live Crew had taken the "heart" of the work. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Does a commercial parody that copies recognizable elements of a copyrighted song qualify as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107, and may courts presume market harm from the mere fact of commercial use?
Under 17 U.S.C. § 107, fair use is assessed case by case according to four nonexclusive factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is commercial and whether it is transformative (adding new expression, meaning, or message); (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used relative to the work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, including markets for traditional, reasonable, or likely derivative uses. No single factor is dispositive, and commerciality alone does not create a presumption of unfairness or market harm. Parody, as a form of criticism/comment that targets the original, may justifiably copy enough of the original to "conjure up" the work, so long as the taking is not excessive in relation to the parodic purpose. Market harm cannot be presumed for transformative parodies and must be proven with evidence of likely substitution in cognizable markets.
A commercial parody may qualify as fair use; commercial nature does not give rise to a presumption of market harm. The Sixth Circuit erred by presuming harm and misweighing the factors. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings under the correct standard.
The Court centered its analysis on transformation: whether 2 Live Crew's work added new expression, meaning, or message. It concluded that parody has a strong claim to transformative value because it comments on, criticizes, or ridicules the original. Here, 2 Live Crew's lyrics and style targeted and mocked the romanticized depiction in "Oh, Pretty Woman," thereby adding new meaning and message. While the use was undeniably commercial, the Court rejected any presumption that commercial uses are unfair, limiting the Sony presumption to the context of nontransformative, verbatim copying for the same intrinsic purpose. The first factor therefore favored 2 Live Crew due to the work's transformative, parodic character, with commerciality weighing only modestly against fair use. On the second factor, the original song is creative and thus lies at the core of copyright protection; however, because it was published and because the second factor typically carries less weight in parody cases, this factor did not significantly cut against fair use. Regarding the third factor, the group took the opening bass riff and first lyric—central, recognizable elements. The Court emphasized that parody must be allowed to take enough of the original to "conjure up" the work, because a parody that cannot be recognized cannot effectively comment on its target. The question is whether the defendant took more than necessary for the parodic aim. The Court concluded that the lower court erred by treating the use of the "heart" as dispositive against fair use; the record suggested the amount used served the parodic purpose and was not excessive. As to the fourth factor, the Court rejected the Sixth Circuit's presumption that a commercial use inflicts market harm. Parodies rarely serve as substitutes for the originals; their target audiences and purposes differ. Market harm must be proven with evidence of likely substitution in markets the copyright holder would ordinarily develop or license. While a copyright holder might claim a licensing market for parodies, courts should not recognize as cognizable a "derivative market" for criticism that rights holders would predictably refuse to license. Because the record did not establish actual or likely substitution, and because the lower court relied on an improper presumption, remand was necessary. The Court also clarified that the defendant's attempt to seek permission does not foreclose fair use if permission is denied, nor is "good faith" dispositive under the statutory factors. Ultimately, all four factors must be weighed, with transformative purpose and market substitution analyzed on the particular facts.
Campbell is the cornerstone of modern fair use doctrine. It elevates transformative use as the central consideration under factor one, cabins the Sony presumption of market harm, and articulates how parody fits within fair use, including the permissibility of borrowing the "heart" of a work when necessary to conjure it up. The decision guides courts to conduct an evidence-based, factor-by-factor inquiry without categorical rules against commercial uses. For students, Campbell illustrates statutory interpretation, common-law development within the Copyright Act, and the nuanced treatment of speech interests in the fair use framework. Its reasoning has influenced numerous later cases assessing transformation and market harm across media and technologies.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music reshaped fair use by embedding transformation at the heart of the analysis and rejecting categorical shortcuts based on commerciality. The Court recognized that parody, even when sold for profit, can advance the goals of copyright by adding new meaning and fostering criticism and comment, so long as the taking is tailored to the parodic purpose and does not usurp the legitimate markets of the original.