Campbell V Acuff Rose Music IncEdit

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. is a landmark case in the U.S. copyright landscape, notable for clarifying how fair use interacts with parody in a commercial setting. The dispute centered on the rap group 2 Live Crew and their commercially released parody of the classic song Oh, Pretty Woman—a work originally written by Roy Orbison and Bill Dees and published by Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. The Supreme Court ultimately held that a commercial parody can qualify as fair use under the four-factor test, so long as the use is transformative and the market impact is properly weighed. The decision has had a lasting impact on how courts evaluate parody, transformation, and the boundaries between expression and ownership in contemporary popular culture.

Background

The core players were the copyright holder Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. and the performers behind 2 Live Crew. Acuff-Rose owned the rights to the original composition, while the group sought to bring a satirical rap rendering of the song to audiences without securing a license for the underlying work.
The original song, Oh, Pretty Woman, was written by Roy Orbison and Bill Dees and published by Acuff-Rose. The dispute raised questions about whether a parody that is openly commercial can still be fair use, and how much of the original work may be used in transforming it into something new.
A series of court actions led to a ruling by the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit previously weighed the case under the traditional four-factor fair use test. The case is frequently cited in discussions of how the fair use doctrine accommodates criticism, commentary, and humor in a marketplace dominated by licensing concerns.

Supreme Court decision

Overview

The Supreme Court held that a commercial parody can be fair use. The decision emphasized that the purpose and character of the use—the parody’s transformative function—can weigh in favor of fair use even when the use is profit-driven. The Court did not categorically bar commercial parodies from claiming fair use; rather, it reaffirmed that the four-factor test requires a careful balancing of factors, with transformation and market impact playing key roles.

Reasoning and factors

First factor (purpose and character of the use): The Court found that parody that transforms the original work by adding new expression, meaning, or message can weigh in favor of fair use. A parody does more than merely copy; it comments on, critiques, or lampoons the original, which can justify fair use even for a commercial product.
Second factor (nature of the copyrighted work): While original works of music are creative, the Court suggested that the parodic function can reduce concerns about copying the expressive nature of the work when the use is clearly transformative.
Third factor (amount and substantiality): The Court noted that parodic references to the original are often necessary to convey the joke or critique, and using only what is required for the transformation can favor fair use.
Fourth factor (effect on the market): The Court left room for lower courts to assess potential market harm, acknowledging that a parody could undermine, or alternatively stimulate, demand for the original. The decision underscored that this factor must be weighed with care and that the mere existence of a commercial parody does not automatically doom fair use.

Aftermath in the courts

The decision did not declare the parody automatically free of infringement; rather, it sent the case back to consider factor four in light of the transformation question. The ruling set a framework for evaluating later cases that involve parody and transformative uses, especially in media where licensing arrangements can be complex and costly.

Impact and legacy

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. is frequently cited for articulating the transformative-use rationale within the fair use doctrine. It provided a clear example that the purpose of a work (in this case, humor and critique through parody) can be a decisive factor in fair use analysis.
The ruling influenced the way courts view parody in popular music, film, television, and online content, reinforcing that expressive innovation can coexist with property rights in a dynamic cultural marketplace.
It also reinforced the importance of licensing markets and the role of rights holders in setting reasonable terms for derivative works, while recognizing that transformative, commentary-driven uses may be protected.

Controversies and debates

Proponents of stronger protection for creators argue that Campbell reinforces the incentive structure that underpins musical and media industries: if artists and publishers cannot expect fair compensation for the use of their works, the pipeline of innovation and investment could suffer. From this perspective, the decision is a principled defense of property rights and economic incentives that support ongoing creation.
Critics, often focusing on freedom of expression, contend that fair use should more readily accommodate satire and critique, even when those uses are commercial. They worry that a broad interpretation of transformation could erode licensing revenues and undermine control over original works. Supporters of the decision counter that the four-factor test remains the standard, and that transformative parody is a legitimate form of cultural dialogue that does not erase authors' rights but rather encourages a healthier ecosystem of commentary and innovation.
Some observers argue that the ruling creates ambiguity by allowing strong expressive uses to survive as fair use even in profit-driven contexts. The response from proponents is that the doctrine already builds in safeguards—such as the market-effect factor—and that courts must engage in careful, case-by-case analysis to avoid unintended consequences. The emphasis remains on balancing creative freedom with the economic rights of creators.