Decision of the court

“It was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of 2 Live Crew's parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" rendered it presumptively unfair. No such evidentiary presumption is available to address either the first factor, the character and purpose of the use, or the fourth, market harm, in determining whether a transformative use, such as parody, is a fair one. The court also erred in holding that 2 Live Crew had necessarily copied excessively from the Orbison original, considering the parodic purpose of the use. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. “
http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_campbellacuff.html#14

The court found the song to be of fair use by it’s dissenting opinions in reguards to the Copyright Act of 1976. Because the purpose of copyright is, "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts . . . ." U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. And as justice Story explains that "[i]n truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before." Emerson v. Davies, 8 F. Cas. 615, 619 (No. 4,436) (CCD Mass. 1845).

The court found that the work was not of commercial nature, such as advertising or promoting anything in specific. It also found that it proposed no form of market harm, thus the audiences for each individual work is so vaired that there would be no monetary loss for the original work done by Orbison.