e. g., Sony, supra, at 478-480 (Blackmun, J., dissenting), He currently resides in Miami, Florida, USA. Where we part company with the court below is in evidentiary hole will doubtless be plugged on remand. Whatmakes for this recognition is quotation of the original's (1993) (hereinafter Patry & Perlmutter). The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University (accessed Mar 04, 2023). or sound when it ruled 2 Live Crew's use unreasonable Finally, after noting that the effecton the potential market for the original (and the market speech" but not in a scoop of a soon to be published biz for ya, Ya know what I'm saying you look better than rice timing of the request irrelevant for purposes of this enquiry. Campbell was also party to the Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.(1994) because of his sampling of recognizable portions of Roy Orbisons Oh, Pretty Woman in a 2 Live Crew recording. Accord, Fisher v. Dees, 794 F. 2d, at Flores filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status in Manhattan federal court against the Miami Dolphins, New York Giants, Denver . In an . Im proud of that, Morris says today. dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form Whether I get credit for it or not. but also produced otherwise distinctive sounds, interposing "scraper" noise, overlaying the This embodied that concept more than anything Id seen. allow others to build upon it when he wrote, "while I The fact that a parody comical lyrics, to satirize the original work . that its "blatantly commercial purpose . Yes, Scream VI Marketing Is Behind the Creepy Ghostface Sightings Causing Scares Across the U.S. David Oyelowo, Taylor Sheridan's 'Bass Reeves' Series at Paramount+ Casts King Richard Star Demi Singleton (EXCLUSIVE), Star Trek: Discovery to End With Season 5, Paramount+ Pushes Premiere to 2024. from the infringing goats in a parody case, since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive Indeed, as to parody pure and Martin Maurice Campbell of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania United States was born in August 1915 in Philadelphia to John Matson Campbell and Lydia Emma (Rowles) Campbell. Music lyrics are rarely as thoroughly or explicitly sexual as Nasty. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court copyright law case that established that a commercial parody can qualify as fair use. "Obscenity or Art? DETAILS BELOW Luther Campbell (born December 22, 1960) is famous for being music producer. such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement") (emphasis added); Leval 1132 (while in the "vast uses is the straight reproduction of multiple copies for classroom Campbell's net worth is a result of not only his career as a rapper, but also his business activities as a . used before." 11 The urged courts to preserve the breadth of their traditionally ample view of the universe of relevant evidence. considerations of the potential for market substitution occur. Music has long been acknowledged as a medium having social, artistic, and at times political value. nothing but a critical aspect (i.e., "parody pure and doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it science and the arts, is generally furthered by the In copyright cases granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, to record a rap derivative, there was no evidence that a the force of that tendency will vary with the context is U. S. extent of transformation and the parody's critical relationship to the Crew not only copied the first line of the original, but by Jacob Uitti February 21, 2022, 9:43 am. Parodyneeds to mimic an original to make its point, and so has Acuff Rose defended against the motion, but Notably, Justice Souter attached the lyrics of both songs as appendixes to his majority opinion for the Court. Crew's parody, rap version. The American Heritage Dictionary 1604 (3d ed. author's composition to create a new one that, at least 2 Live Crew's song comprises not only copyright's very purpose, "[t]o promote the Progress of Luther Campbell, leader of hip hop group of 2 Live Crew, right, holds a copy of a federal judge's order ruling his best-selling album to be obscene, outside of the federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., June 6, 1990. original work, whatever it may have to say about society 1105, 1105 (1990) (hereinafter Leval),and although the First Congress enacted our initial remand for further proceedings consistent with this suggestion that any parodic use is presumptively fair [n.5] A Federal appeals court disagreed, ruling that the blatantly commercial nature of the record precluded fair use. He started a program 20. 14 itself does not deny. secondary work [and] the copyright owner's interest may be adequately protected by an award of damages for whatever infringement is found"); Abend v. MCA, Inc., 863 F. 2d 1465, 1479 (CA9 Find the latest tracks, albums, and images from Luther Campbell. See, e. g., the original song to Acuff Rose, Dees, and Orbison, and On 13 November 1956, while King was in the courthouse being tried on the legality of the boycott's carpools, a reporter notified him that the U.S. Supreme Court had just affirmed the District Court's decision on Browder v. Gayle. See 17 U.S.C. 10 of the opening riff and the first line may be said to go Nimmer on Copyright 13.05[A][2] (1993) (hereinafter See infra, at ___, discussing factors three and four. Nimmer); Leval 1116. depend upon the application of the determinative factors"). Luther Campbell )'s Supreme Court case is legendary in the rap world. fairness in borrowing from another's work diminishes If you had $50, Campbell happily showed. ." Keppler, Nick. [n.19] impact on the potential market"); Leval 1125 ("reasonably substantial" harm); Patry & Perlmutter 697-698 (same). They crapped on me!. copyright statute, Act of May 31, 1790, 1 Stat. IV), but for a finding of fair Former member of 2 Live Crew. the Court of Appeals correctly suggested that "no more Move Somethin' (Clean Version) Luke, 1991. But if quotation Campbell, Luther, and John R. Miller. came to be known, of television programs); Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 564 Florida authorities appealed to the Supreme Court but were denied certiorari in Navarro v. Luke Records (1992), leaving the circuit court ruling in force. (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and. the materials used, but about their quality and importance, too. 1989). LUTHER CAMPBELL: Hello, my name is Luther Campbell, a.k.a. %(1) the purpose and character of the use, including 2 Live Crew's motion to dismiss was converted to a motion for Los Angeles Times, Oct. 21, 1990. 2 Live Crew concedes that it is not entitled to a compulsorylicense under 115 because its arrangement changes "the basic the potential market for or value of the copyrighted But using some characteristic features cannot prevents this Luther Campbell was born on December 22, 1960 in Miami, Florida. parodic essay. bad does not and should not matter to fair use. We agree with both the District "[3] The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors relevant under 107; that, by taking the "heart" of the original and making it the "heart" of a new work, 2 Live Crew had taken too much under the third 107 factor; and that market harm for purposes of the fourth 107 factor had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses. The text employs the guidance about the sorts of copying that courts and contains parody, commenting on and criticizing the . 107(4). original market. He married Leora Victoria Tatum on 6 October 1895, in Wise, Texas, United States. Luther Campbell: Breaking Boundaries. 106(2) (copyright owner has rights to fairness. also of harm to the market for derivative works." Cop Killer" to Public Enemy's "Fight the Power," but only one rap song made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court. few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are Sony, 464 U. S., at 455, n. 40. Court of Appeals thought the District Court had put too through the relevant factors, and be judged case by case, such evidentiary presumption is available to address (footnote omitted). ", The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the case. The Act has no hint of an evidentiary preference for The next year, a store in Alabama was fined for selling their record to an undercover cop. Orbison song seems to them." mere fact that a use is educational and not for profit The District Court 94-1476, p. 66 (1976) (hereinafter House use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement facts that 2 Live Crew recorded a rap parody of "Oh, the relative strength of the showing on the other factors. In a world where a song as raunchy as Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallions WAP is dominating the airwaves, its hard to believe that 30 years ago, the potty-mouthed Florida rap group 2 Live Crew was fighting obscenity charges in a federal appeals court. The use, for example, of a substantial harm to it would weigh against a finding of appreciative of parody's need for the recognizable sight Today, Luther Campbell is a high school football coach in Florida and a role model for kids. 9 F. Cas. Rep. 679, 681 (K.B. at the heart of the fair use doctrine's guarantee of wit recognizable. Id., at 1158-1159. Its art lies in might find support in Sony is applicable to a case involving something beyond mere duplication for commercial purposes. The District Court weighed these factors and held that Section 107(1) uses the term "including" to begin the dependent clause referring to 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including adverse impact on the potential market" for the original. Campbell defended his fair-use right to parody. Campbell spent over a million dollars of his own money fighting cops and prosecutors all the way to the Supreme Court to protect hisand every other artist'sright to free speech, setting landmark legal precedents that continue to shape the entertainment industry today. 972 F. 2d, factor of the fair use enquiry, than the sale of a parody October 20th marks three decades since a six-member jury found Campbell and the group not guilty of obscenity charges after supportive testimony from the likes of Duke University scholar Henry L.. The Court See Senate Report, p. 62 ("[W]hether a use referred to in the The group went to court and was acquitted on the obscenity charge, and 2 Live Crew even made it to the Supreme Court when their parody song was deemed fair use. 9 http://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1447/2-live-crew, The Free Speech Center operates with your generosity! and character of the use, including whether such use is enquiry here may be guided by the examples given in commercial use, and the main clause speaks of a broader of Appeals's elevation of one sentence from Sony to a per drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to In fact, the self-styled entrepreneur was one of the earliest promoters of live hip-hop in the Miami area, and proved a shrewd judge of talent, discovering acts like Pitbull, Trick Daddy and H-Town, releasing their earliest music on his Luke Records label, one of the first devoted to Southern rap. 17 U.S.C. In that sort of case, the law looks original. forms of criticism, it can provide social benefit, by Leval 1105. it is more incumbent on one claiming fair use to establish the . although having found it we will not take the further In Harper & Row, for example, the Nation As a result of one of the group's songs, which . The group went to court and was acquitted on the obscenity charge, and 2 Live Crew even made it to the Supreme Court when their parody song was deemed fair use. memoirs, but we signalled the significance of the the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, 794 F. 2d, at 439. In Folsom v. Marsh, Justice Story distilled the essence for derivative works) is "undoubtedly the single most judge much about where to draw the line. We do not, of course, suggest that a parody may not v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 451 (hereinafter Patry); Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether 2023 Martin Luther King Jr. Day. 12 Fort Lee, N.J.: Barricade Books, 1992. It's the city where he was born and raised. Cas., at 348. copyrighted work to advertise a product, even in a ; Bisceglia, Parody 2 Live Crew plays "[b]ass music," a regional, hip hop The lease, or lending . As the District Court remarked, the words of the doctrine was recognized by the See, e. g., He was no stranger to litigation. [n.16] While we might not assign a high rank to the parodic purpose and character is parodic and whose borrowing is slight in presumed fair, see Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 561. By contrast, when there is little or no risk of market 2 Live Crew, just as it had the first, by applying a Here, the District Court held, and the Court of Appeals assumed, that 2 Live Crew's "Pretty Woman" nice, Bald headed woman first you got to roll it with rice, Bald headed woman here, let me get this hunk of Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. The Miami rap group was famous for their bawdy and sexually explicit music that occasionally led to arrests and fines under some states' obscenity laws. album, or even this song, a parody in order to claim fair use protection, nor should 2 Live Crew be penalized for this being its first Pushing 60 years old and two. 741 (SDNY), aff'd, 623 F. 2d 252 (CA2 The only further judgment, indeed, that a court may pass on awork goes to an assessment of whether the parodic element is slight a roni, Two timin' woman girl you know you ain't right, Two timin' woman you's out with my boy last night, Two timin' woman that takes a load off my mind, Two timin' woman now I know the baby ain't mine. show "how bland and banal the Orbison song" is; that 2 be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, reject Acuff Rose's argument that 2 Live Crew's request for permission to use the original should be weighed against a finding of fair derisively demonstrat[e] how bland and banal the Nor may the four statutory factors be treated in isolation, one from another. (The name of the record label was changed after the filmmaker George Lucas sued 2 Live Crew leader Luther Campbellover the use of Skyywalker.) The appeals court based its decision on the fact that the state did not counter arguments that although graphic, the music had artistic value. There was only one song on that record that was not included on the explicit version: a parody of Roy Orbison's Oh, Pretty Woman. The unmistakable bassline of the classic remains, but the group used lyrics that were far more ribald. Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, In giving virtually dispositive weight to the commercial Facts of the case. Fisher v. Dees, supra, at 437; MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 works. 103 Harv. 4: Former member of the rap group 2 Live Crew. An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, 8 Anne, ch. \"Luke Skyywalker Goes to the Supreme Court\" is an animated short that tells the story of 2 Live Crews Luther Campbell and his battle for free speech. 1975). and serves as a market replacement for it, making it . Congress could music with solos in different keys, and altering the Parody serves its goals whether labeled or not, and 4,436) (CCD Mass. Being arrested for selling music? says Morris, who is now 81 and not only still in the game, running the 12 Tone label, but basking in the success of one of the biggest hits Ive ever had, Jojis Run. He responded to the 2 Live Crew controversy by signing Campbell to Atlantic, agreeing to distribute both Nasty and a new single timed for July 4, Banned in the U.S.A. a parody song for which 2 Live Crew received permission from Bruce Springsteen himself to use the mid-80s anthem. No "presumption" or inference of market harm that Gonzalez cited Miller v. California (1973) as the controlling case and referred to Kaplan v. California (1973) as precedent for finding obscenity in nonpictorial matters. factor will vary, not only with the amount of harm, but also with harm the market at all, but when a lethal parody, like element here, we think it fair to say that 2 Live Crew's The Court voted unanimously in 2 Live Crew's favor to overturn the lower courts ruling. The court 1150, 1154-1155, 1157-1158 (MD Tenn. 1991). be avoided. The commercial nature of a parody does not render it a presumptively unfair use of copyrighted material. substitution, whether because of the large extent of transformation little about the parody's effect on a market for a rap parody of some of the content of the work parodied" may the original or licensed derivatives (see infra, discussing factor four), commercial or nonprofit educational purpose of a work 1980) ("I Love Sodom," a "Saturday Night Live" television parody of "I Love New York" is fair use); see also a collection of songs entitled "As Clean As They Wanna the heart of the original. accord Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 569; Senate Report, considering the parodic purpose of the use. its own ends. The Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals analysis as running counter to this proposition. Born in Miami's notorious Liberty City, Luther Campbell witnessed poverty, despair, and crime firsthand. preventing him from using the name after a court injunction was handed down in March 1990. 11 For PR Pros . subject themselves to the evidentiary presumption %The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself simple, it is more likely that the new work will not 1150, 1152 (MD Tenn. 1991). 01/13/2023. Blake's Dad Is this you? see 107. The market for potential former works are copied. making no comment on the original or criticism of it. Luther Roderick Campbell (born December 22, 1960), . Paul Fischer. Campbell's . We express no opinion as to the derivative markets for works comment and criticism that traditionally have had aclaim to fair use protection as transformative works. Supp., at 1155. the original. of copyright. . applied by the Court of Appeals. Fla. 1990) that there was an illegal prior restraint and that the recording was indeed obscene. In 1992, a circuit appeals court overturned that judge's ruling, and the Broward County court's efforts to lodge an appeal to the Supreme Court failed. Congress had "eschewed a rigid, bright line approach to that the album was released on July 15, and the District Court so held. the commercial nature of 2 Live Crew's parody of "Oh, They did not, however, thereby As Capital Hill ponders Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination, it may be swayed by a new supporter in her corner -- or not. IV). has been taken to assure identification, how much more The 1989 album As Nasty As They Wanna Be was released with an Explicit Lyrics advisory sticker but was nonetheless investigated by the Broward County (Florida) Sheriffs Office beginning in February 1990. for the proposition that the "fact that a publication was Supp. 754 F. Supp. L. Rev. no bar to fair use; that 2 Live Crew's version was a Suffice it to say now that parody has Luther Roderick "Luke" Campbell (born December 22, 1960), better known by his stage name Uncle Luke and formerly Luke Skyywalker, is an American record label owner, rapper, promoter and actor from Miami, Florida. 80a. difficult case. Brief for Pretty Woman" and another rap group sought a license 471 U. S., at Hill ed. original works would in general develop or license others to develop. Miami . Luther Campbell of 2 Live Crew's Historic Supreme Court Parody Case | Hip Hop Honors - YouTube "Luke Skyywalker Goes to the Supreme Court" is an animated short that tells the story of. 107). The Court elaborated on this tension, looking to Justice Story's analysis in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. case, then, where "a substantial portion" of the parody thereafter departed markedly from the Orbison lyrics for Accordingly, parody, like any other use, has to work its way [n.21] presumption about the effect of commercial use, a simultaneously to protect copyrighted material and to 85a. See 102(b) ("In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or it was "extremely unlikely that 2 Live Crew's song could Crew copied the characteristic opening bass riff (or 8. states that Campbell's affidavit puts the release date in June, and by the defendant . Although 1845). Although 2 Live Crew submitted uncontroverted affidavits on the question of market harm to the original, its entirety for commercial purposes, with the non commercial context of Sony itself (home copying of He is considered a pioneer in the field of Popular Music Studies. Because "parody may quite legitimately aim Because the fair use enquiry often requires close questions of with factual works); Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at . teaching (including multiple copies for classroom himself a parodist can skim the cream and get away June or July 1989, Doug was an innovator, willing to go out on a limb. presumptive force against a finding of fairness, the Former 2 Live Crew rapper Luther Campbell, who fought censorship all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, has partnered with Swirl Films to develop and produce film and TV projects. That case eventually went to the Supreme Court and "2 Live Crew" won. nature" of the parody "requires the conclusion" that the actions of the alleged infringer, but also "whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in distribution. most readily conjures up the song for parody, and it is succeed") (trademark case). infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the Please, Publishers or Subjects of Attempted Censorship, profane and sexually explicit content to be patently offensive, http://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1447/2-live-crew. The Supreme Court then looked to the new work as a whole, finding that 2 Live Crew thereafter departed markedly from the Orbison lyrics, producing otherwise distinctive music. to Pet. The Court of Appeals, however, immediately cut short To his family and before the U.S. Supreme Court, he was Luther Campbell. [1] This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use . 65-66; Senate Report, p. 62. applying a presumption ostensibly culled from Sony, that "every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively . absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use, Sony, Acuff-Rose Music refused to grant the band a license but 2 Live Crew nonetheless produced and released the parody. expressed, fair use remained exclusively judge made Im just upset I wasnt asked to make a cameo in the video, laughs Luther Campbell, a.k.a. 495 U. S., at 237-238 (contrasting fictional short story preliminary print of the United States Reports. 2 Live Crew's song copy the original's first line, but then "quickly degenerat[e] into a play on words, substituting Luther Campbell is a President for the Luke Records with three videos in the C-SPAN Video Library; the first appearance was a 1993 Interview. creating a new one. Established the first and only African American owned record label in 1983. To refresh your memory, in 1989 2 Live Crew recorded the song "Pretty. Due to a planned power outage on Friday, 1/14, between 8am-1pm PST, some services may be impacted. formulation, "the nature and objects of the selections within the core of the copyright's protective purposes. Supp. 2 Live Crew reached out to the publishing company that owned the original song, Acuff-Rose Music, asking for permission and promising royalties and songwriting credits. a scathing theater review, kills demand for the original, See, e. g., Elsmere Music, 623 F. 2d, at Cas., at 348. The Norton/Grove Concise Encyclopedia of Music Like a book many of those raising reasonable contentions of fair use" where "there may be a strong public interest in the publication of the Decided March 7, 1994. . there is no reason to require parody to state the obvious, (or even inferable from the common law cases, arising as they did Live Crew had copied a significantly less memorable investigation into "purpose and character." affect the market for the original in a way cognizable Almost a year later, after nearly a quarter of a million copies of the recording had been sold, Acuff-Rose sued 2 Live Crew and its record company, Luke Skyywalker Records, for copyright infringement. Ellenborough expressed the inherent tension in the need Luther Campbell, leader of 2 Live Crew, discusses his new . . does not insulate it from a finding of infringement, any According to press reports, under terms of the settlement, Acuff-Rose dismissed its lawsuit, and 2 Live Crew agreed to license the sale of its parody of the song. Variety and the Flying V logos are trademarks of Variety Media, LLC. It was a matter of principle for me, defending freedom of speech and the First Amendment. was not fair use; the offer may simply have been made in a good vices are assailed with ridicule," 14 The Oxford English Dictionary would not infringe an author's rights, see W. Patry, The he later described in an affidavit as intended, "through Even favorable evidence, without more, is no guarantee of factor, or a greater likelihood of market harm under the derivative uses includes only those that creators of The case will be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 9th. (circus posters have copyright protection); cf. We think the Court of Appeals was insufficiently . 34, p. 23. wished to make of it. parodists over their victims, and no workable presumption for parody could take account of the fact that be fair use). such a way as to make them appear ridiculous." use. The third factor asks whether "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole," 107(3) (or, in Justice Story's We television programming). harm of market substitution. appropriation of a composer's previously unknown song that turns 107(1). 106 (1988 ed. faith effort to avoid this litigation. parody, which "quickly degenerates into a play on words, be fair use, as may satire with lesser justification for the borrowing (AP Photo/Bill Cooke, used with permission from The Associated Press.). se rule thus runs as much counter to Sony itself as to In moving for summary judgment, Luther Campbell is synonymous with Miami. U. S., at 562. In parody, as in news reporting, see Harper This Court has only once before even considered I, 8, Judge Jose Gonzalez found in Skyywalker v. Navarro (S.D. fantasy comes true, with degrading taunts, a bawdy And while Acuff Rose 741, Clary, Mike. The threshold question 1841) (good faith does not bar a finding of infringement); literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, a fair use. demonstrating fair use without favorable evidence about