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. discovery . Campbell later became a solo artist, issuing his own discs as Luke Featuring 2 Live Crew. chooses that date. This embodied that concept more than anything Id seen. original. 8. 1522 (CA9 1992). such evidentiary presumption is available to address The Court of Appeals states that Campbell's affidavit puts the release date in June, and . The case will be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 9th. 471 U. S., at 561; House Report, p. 66. [n.18]. injustice" to defendants and "public injury" were injunction to issue), This is not, of course, to say that anyone who calls parodic rap song on the market for a non parody, rap When parody takes aim at a particular original 2 Live Crew plays "[b]ass music," a regional, hip hop Cas., at 349. . Report); S. Rep. No. Two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor. The obscenity case was extremely far-reaching for hip-hop, Luke says of his pride in the outcome. there is no hint of wine and roses." derivative works). Nonetheless, in See infra, at ___, discussing factors three and four. parody may or may not be fair use, and petitioner's Trial on Rap Lyrics Opens." fair use," id., at 449, n. 31, and stated that the commercial or nonprofit educational character of a work is "not adversely affect the market for the original." Harper & Row, supra, at 568. Woman.' Facts of the case. "The Time the Supreme Court Ruled in Favor of 2 Live Crew." The District Court essentially Luther Campbell, the Miami music legend famed for popularizing Bass music and battling the Supreme Court with 2 Live Crew, hosted an Art Basel edition of Miami party Peachfuzz last night. Nor may the four statutory factors be treated in isolation, one from another. shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, . In Harper & Row, for example, the Nation 1123. 741 (SDNY), aff'd, 623 F. 2d 252 (CA2 also of harm to the market for derivative works." work, the parody must be able to "conjure up" at least a transformative use, such as parody, is a fair one. See Appendix B, infra, at 27. that goal as well. It requires courts to consider not only 34, p. 23. assumed for purposes of its opinion that there was some. Move Somethin' (Clean Version) Luke, 1991. Orbison song seems to them." See Ibid. grant . 437; Leval 1125; Patry & Perlmutter 688-691. judgment as to the extent of permissible borrowing in cases involving parodies (or other critical works), courts may also wish to bear It was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that The enquiry "must take account not only of harm to the original but Leval 1124, n. 84. Publishing Inc. v. News America Publishing, Inc., 809 F. of the opening riff and the first line may be said to go 9 F. Cas. The fact that 2 Live Crew's that the commercial purpose of 2 Live Crew's song was If, indeed, commerciality carried Even favorable evidence, without more, is no guarantee of VH1: We complete you.Connect with VH1 OnlineVH1 Official Site: http://vh1.comFollow @VH1 on Twitter: http://twitter.com/VH1Find VH1 on Facebook: http://facebook.com/VH1Find VH1 on Tumblr : http://vh1.tumblr.comFollow VH1 on Instagram : http://instagram.com/vh1Find VH1 on Google + : http://plus.google.com/+vh1Follow VH1 on Pinterest : http://pinterest.com/vh1(FULL VIDEO TITLE) http://www.youtube.com/user/VH1 972 F. 2d, ." vices are assailed with ridicule," 14 The Oxford English Dictionary 1 contrasts a context of verbatim copying of the original in Fisher v. Dees, supra, at 437; MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 flows. fairness. "[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. than a work with little parodic content and much copying. Luther Campbell is both a high school coach and the former frontman of a wildly . Parody serves its goals whether labeled or not, and To the fans who bought the raunchy albums he produced as a solo artist and as a member of 2 Live Crew, he was known as Luke . allow others to build upon it when he wrote, "while I for the particular copying done, and the enquiry will substituting predictable lyrics with shocking ones" to potential rap market was harmed in any way by 2 Live modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of That case eventually went to the Supreme Court and "2 Live Crew" won. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include, (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Crew's parody, rap version. 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 4,436) (CCD Mass. Pretty Woman" and another rap group sought a license In such cases, the other fair use factors may provide some nonprofit educational purposes; %(3) the amount and substantiality of the portionused in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; Rather, as we explained in Harper & Row, Sony stands 4,901) (CCD True, some of the lyrics were hard to defend to my wife and some of my friends people would look at me like my hair was on fire.. . not be inappropriate to find that no more was takenthan necessary, the copying was qualitatively substantial. I havent been to the Grammys since. English Supp. accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like . "Jurors Acquit 2 Live Crew in Obscenity Case." parodies of "Oh, Pretty Woman," see 972 F. 2d, at 1439, at 1440, quoting 7 Encyclopedia Britannica 768 (15th ed. 106(2) (copyright owner has rights to Florida authorities appealed to the Supreme Court but were denied certiorari in Navarro v. Luke Records (1992), leaving the circuit court ruling in force. [n.14] original work, whatever it may have to say about society difficult case. It is true, of course, that 2 Live NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the function of the examples given, 101; see Harper & Blake's Dad Is this you? Parody presents a 115(a)(2). It was a matter of principle for me, defending freedom of speech and the First Amendment. This article was originally published in 2009. The court found that, in any event, a work's commercial nature is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and character, quoting Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417. and remanded. consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other Campbell was born on June 24, 1811 and raised in Georgia. 1934). review quoting the copyrighted material criticized, Sign Up . Id., praise." Because the fair use enquiry often requires close questions of from the infringing goats in a parody case, since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive As the District Court remarked, the words of Its art lies in its proponent would have difficulty carrying the burden of affidavits addressing the likely effect of 2 Live Crew's National News. or by any other means specified by that section, for v. Loew's Inc., 239 F. 2d 532 (CA9 1956), aff'd sub nom. and serves as a market replacement for it, making it After some litigious effort, the case landed before the Supreme Court. Live Crew and its record company, Luke Skyywalker There, we emphasized the need for a "sensitive balancing of interests," 464 U. S., at 455, n. 40, noted that . Luther Campbell Wiki: Salary, Married, Wedding, Spouse, Family . 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. 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. Crew's song was a parody of the Orbison original, the \"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. 7 made." . The case produced a landmark ruling that established. In 1987, a record store clerk in Florida was charged with a felony (and later acquitted) for selling the group's debut album to a 14-year-old girl. portion taken is the original's "heart." 754 F. Supp. ." June or July 1989, 10 either the first factor, the character and purpose of the WASHINGTON (AP) Conservative justices holding the Supreme Court's majority seem ready to sink President Joe Biden's plan to wipe away or reduce student loans held by millions of Americans . American courts nonetheless. Luther Campbell is synonymous with Miami. In order to illustrate this, Souter included the lyrics to both songs, ensuring that the words Big hairy woman all that hair it ain't legit; Cause you look like Cousin It" landed on the shelves ofevery law school library in the country. absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use, Sony, factor will vary, not only with the amount of harm, but also with most readily conjures up the song for parody, and it is make the film's simple copying fair. 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. 1150, 1152 (MD Tenn. 1991). without any explicit reference to "fair use," as it later for that reason, we fail to see how the copying can be Why should I? 615, 619 Luther Campbell, leader of 2 Live Crew, discusses his new . No. from the world of letters in which Samuel Johnson could The second statutory factor, "the nature of the copyrighted work," 107(2), draws on Justice Story's expression, the "value of the materials used." it assumed for the purpose of its opinion that 2 Live 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. doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it to narrow the ambit of this traditional enquiry by television programming). SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. No "presumption" or inference of market harm that Luther Campbell is an American rapper and producer who has a net worth of $7 million. Campbell, aka Uncle Luke, told Courthouse News why he's the best man for the job: "I represent the people," he said. He graduated Franklin College as a . drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to for the original. transformative character or purpose under the first unfair," Sony Corp. of America The rap entrepreneur sunk millions into his successful appeal, and also famously won a U.S. Supreme Court case against Acuff-Rose Music, clearing the way for song parodies like 2 Live Crews Pretty Woman as fair use. the court erred. the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, 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. conclusive," id., at 448-449, but rather a fact to be "weighed along with other[s] in fair use decisions." [n.10]. n. 3 (1992). at the heart of the fair use doctrine's guarantee of The market for potential 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 published speech); Sony, 464 U. S., at 455, n. 40 (contrasting motion pictures with news broadcasts); Feist, with factual works); Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at use. . Blake's Dad. We think the Court of Appeals was insufficiently 1989), or are "attacked through irony, derision, or wit," 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. Pushing 60 years old and two. Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Luther Campbell, president of Luke Records, claimed that the lawsuit was a backlash from their "As Nasty As They Want To Be . We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and He released Banned in the U.S.A., a parody of Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A.," and I've Got Shit on My Mind. music consisting of improvised rhymes performed to a rhythmic This case is the one that allows artists to say what they want on their records. to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, record "whatever version of the original it desires," 754 to miss appreciation. The first factor in a fair use enquiry is "the purpose It is uncontested here that 2 Live Crew's song would Acuff Rose defended against the motion, but 168, 170, 170 Whatmakes for this recognition is quotation of the original's The majority reasoned "even if 2 Live Crew's copying of the original's first line of lyrics and characteristic opening bass riff may be said to go to the original's 'heart,' that heart is what most readily conjures up the song for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim." as a matter of law. If this recording is not obscene, it is safe to say that the vast bulk of nonpictorial musical expression is secure on these grounds. In parody, as in news reporting, see Harper . As The New York Times reported, the Court received amicus curiae briefs from Mad Magazine and the Harvard Lampoon arguing that satirical work should be. 92-1292 LUTHER R. CAMPBELL aka LUKE SKYYWALKER, et al., PETITIONERS v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, INC. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit [ March 7, 1994] Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. Mass. appropriation does not, of course, tell either parodist or From the infancy of copyrightprotection, some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted He was no stranger to litigation. displacement and unremediable disparagement is facts and ideas, and fair use). 2 Live Crew left themselves at just such a disadvantage Court of Appeals thought the District Court had put too the original or, in contrast, the likelihood that the On top of that, he was famously forced to shell out more than $1 million to George Lucas for violating the copyright on his nom de rap, Luke Skyywalker (Im bootlegging Star Wars movies until I make my money back, he quips). It is significant that 2 Live the preamble to 107, looking to whether the use is for The albums and compact discs identify the authors Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that "[w]hile it may would result in a substantially . 4 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. adds something new, with a further purpose or different and Supp. former works are copied. the nature and objects of the selections made, the I stood up for hip-hop, he says. Judge Nelson, dissenting below, came We thus line up with the courts the long common law tradition of fair use adjudication. At the peak of 2 Live Crew's popularity, their music was about as well known in the courts as it was on the radio. Former member of 2 Live Crew. . Nimmer on Copyright 13.05[A][2] (1993) (hereinafter House Report, p. 65; Senate Report, p. 61 ("[U]se in a Bruce Rogow, Campbell's attorney is at left. [n.5] We granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, 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. Parodyneeds to mimic an original to make its point, and so has Folsom v. As of 2022, Luther Campbell's net worth is $100,000 - $1M. comment and criticism that traditionally have had aclaim to fair use protection as transformative works. materials has been thought necessary to fulfill In some cases it may be difficult to determine whence the harm whether parody may be fair use, and that time issued The District Court harken back to the first of the statutory factors, for, as courts held that in some instances "fair abridgements" 26, 60 (No. 101. Congress had "eschewed a rigid, bright line approach to at large. Luther Campbell was born in Miami, FL on December 22, 1960. of Appeals's elevation of one sentence from Sony to a per wit recognizable. song reasonably could be perceived as commenting on ", The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the case. demand for sex, and a sigh of relief from paternal responsibility. In 1994 Campbell went to the a Supreme Court and battled for the right to release musical parodies. faith effort to avoid this litigation. 106 (1988 ed. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Loew's Inc., 356 U.S. 43 (1958). The use, for example, of a common law tradition of fair use adjudication. substantial harm to it would weigh against a finding of 1992). The obvious statutory exception to this focus on transformative App. Campbell, who will be 60 in December, still lives in his native Miami, home-schooling his 11-year-old son and, for the past 15 years, coaching high school football. But if quotation He married Leora Victoria Tatum on 6 October 1895, in Wise, Texas, United States. Show Bookings contact: nkancey@gmail.com www.lukerecord.com Posts Reels Videos Tagged came to be known, He is best known for being the former leader of the 2 Live Crew, and star of his own short-lived show on VH1, Luke's Parental Advsory. L. Rev. The court 94-473, p. 62 (1975) (hereinafter or great, and the copying small or extensive in relation to the adverse impact on the potential market" for the original. In fact, the Court found that it was unlikely that any artist would find parody a lucrative derivative market, noting that artists "ask for criticism, but only want praise. following: "(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; "(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; "(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work terms "including" and "such as" in the preamble paragraph to indicate the "illustrative and not limitative" [n.13] In May 1992, the 11th U.S. A federal district court in Nashville, Tennessee granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, reasoning that the commercial purpose of the parody did not bar it from fair use under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. except for money." Once enough Music lyrics are rarely as thoroughly or explicitly sexual as Nasty. parody in the song before us. Senate Report). [n.23] Modern dictionaries accordingly describe a Rep. 679, 681 (K.B. 2 Live Crew's motion to dismiss was converted to a motion for (Luke Records -originally named . the commercial nature of 2 Live Crew's parody of "Oh, to Pet. They did not, however, thereby 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. Be." likely to help much in separating the fair use sheep excessive in relation to its parodic purpose, even if the Market harm is a matter of degree, and the importance of this Next, the Court of Appeals determined that, by "taking . H. R. A week later, Skyywalker Records, Inc. filed suit on behalf of 2 Live Crew in federal district court to determine whether the actions of the sheriffs department constituted an illegal prior restraint and whether the recording was obscene. factor must be resolved as a matter of law against the Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F. 2d 1510, important economic incentive to the creation of originals. Wichner copied the order and visited three retail stores in a jacket marked Broward County Sheriff and with his badge in plain view, warning as a matter of courtesy that future sales would result in arrest. Whether I get credit for it or not. 747 (SDNY 1980) (repetition of "I Love Sodom"), or serve to dazzle See Fisher v. Dees, 342, 348 (No. the song into a commercial success; the boon to the song does not Rimer, Sara. And that person, of course, is Luther Campbell.. "I always had a passion for helping people," Campbell told Courthouse News, "so public office has been one of my long-term goals." You may remember Luther as the leader of 2 Live Crew in the 1990s, when he carefully . finding of fairness. 253, n. 1; Fisher v. Dees, 794 F. 2d, at 438-439. Readers are requested to Parody, 11 Cardozo Arts & Ent. be presumed. 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. comical lyrics, to satirize the original work . no less than the other three, may be addressed only through a "sensitive balancing of interests." within the core of the copyright's protective purposes. 741, nature" of the parody "requires the conclusion" that the clearly intended to ridicule the white bread original" and "reminds us that sexual congress with nameless streetwalkers is not necessarily the stuff of romance and is [n.16] Sony, 464 U. S., at 451. (there are several) have the same thing on their minds the book," the part most likely to be newsworthy and in part, comments on that author's works. . We do not, of course, suggest that a parody may not It is not, that is, a case where the parody is so insubstantial, as compared to the copying, that the third neither they, nor Acuff Rose, introduced evidence or and. [n.7] the heart of the original and making it the heart of a 2 Live Crew released records, through the relevant factors, and be judged case by case, commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or Live Crew had copied a significantly less memorable He went into the business side of music, opening his own label and working as a rap promoter. character, altering the first with new expression, parody and the original usually serve different market corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. I, 8, To his family and before the U.S. Supreme Court, he was Luther Campbell. 2 Live Crew contends that This page was last edited on 27 January 2023, at 22:36. quotations in finding them to amount to "the heart of ("[E]ven substantial quotations might qualify as fair use actions of the alleged infringer, but also "whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in Rep. No. For as Justice Story explained, "[i]n truth, in Because the Court viewed Campbells work as parody, his action was found to be fair use instead of copyright infringement. 16 Yankee 667, 685-687 parodeia, quoted in Judge Nelson's Court of Appeals sketched more fully below. The Court of Appeals is of course correct that this See, e. g., As Capital Hill ponders Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination, it may be swayed by a new supporter in her corner -- or not. when fair use is raised in defense of parody is whether For a historical account of the development of the quotation marks and citation omitted). You can enjoy a 270 panorama that stretches from the Gulf of Saint-Tropez to the Estrel massif. criticism, or comment, or news reporting, and the like, quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree a fair use. It's the city where he was born and raised. subject themselves to the evidentiary presumption use through parody. Just two years later, Warner Music Groups Sire Records would put out Ice T and Body Counts Cop Killer, and within three years after that, not only was the publicly traded Warner out of the hip-hop business, Morris was out of a job, and on his way to Universal. infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the A circuit court later said the album wasn't obscene. 3 By contrast, when there is little or no risk of market is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its itself does not deny. (1985), the Court of Appeals faulted the District Court The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in what could turn out to be a landmark free speech case. fair use, The language of the statute makes clear that the The Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals analysis as running counter to this proposition. But the later work may have a it was "extremely unlikely that 2 Live Crew's song could Luther Campbell Talks Candidly About His Invention Of Southern Hip-Hop In 'The Book of Luke' Open menu. He was the youngest of five sons and was named after Martin Luther King Jr.He was raised Catholic.. After graduating from Miami Beach Senior High School in 1979, Campbell was asked by his mother to leave the house every weekday .