Skip to main content

View Diary: Louisiana Threatens To Sue MoveOn Over Billboard (257 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The NSA didn't lose, they settled which means (0+ / 0-)

    no precedent was created one way or the other.

    You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

    by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 10:56:32 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  precedent is Campbell. (0+ / 0-)

      Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
      Creators of parody may be faced with questions of copyright infringement. In this 1994 decision, the Supreme Court held that a commercial parody may be a “fair use” in accordance with Section 107 of the Copyright Act, as a defense against an accusation of copyright infringement.
      In this case, rap group 2 Live Crew’s song “Pretty Woman,” a parody of Roy Orbison’s rock ballad, “Oh Pretty Woman,” was challenged by Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. as an infringement on the company’s copyright on the Orbison tune. The publishing company contended that Campbell had not made fair use of Orbison’s song. They pointed out that Campbell’s version used the original work for commercial purposes and that he had taken too much of the original work.
      Campbell countered that his parody was fair use. The U.S. Supreme Court took the case to determine whether 2 Live Crew’s commercial parody was indeed a fair use.
      A fair-use analysis, according to the Court, involves four factors: “1) purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is commercially motivated or instead is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2) nature of the copyrighted work; 3) amount and substantiality of the portion used in the newly created work in relation to the copyrighted work; and 4) effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site