Issue of the case

This case reached the supreme court as a case representing copyright, and what is and isn’t an example of fair use when the work is in parody of another work. The supreme court held a number of issues up for interpreting in the case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”
http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_campbellacuff.html

The court looked at whether or not the song could be interpreted as fair use as a parody under the Copyright act of 1976. District Courts found the song in fair use, but was reversed by the court of appeals. The song was characterized by it’s “commercial character and excessive borrowing.” Supreme court Justice Souter expressed his opinion by writing that, “Because we hold that a parody's commercial character is only one element to be weighed in a fair use enquiry, and that insufficient consideration was given to the nature of parody in weighing the degree of copying, we reverse and remand.”

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. This factor takes into consideration the nature of the work. 2 Live Crew’s song can be seen a a parody, but “the fact that parody can claim legitimacy for some appropriation does not, of course, tell either parodist or judge much about where to draw the line.” The Supreme court stated that, “We have less difficulty in finding that critical element in 2 Live Crew's song than the Court of Appeals did, although having found it we will not take the further step of evaluating its quality.” Instead the court viewed the work and looked for it’s transformative value. And that “Although such transformative use is not absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use, Sony, supra, at 455, n.40, the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works. Such works thus lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine's guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright, see, e. g., Sony, supra, at 478-480 (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting), and the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.”

2. The nature of the copyrighted work. The cort stated, “We agree with both the District Court and the Court of Appeals that the Orbison original's creative expression for public dissemination falls within the core of the copyright's protective purposes. 754 F. Supp. at 1155-1156; 972 F.2d at 1437. This fact, however, is not much help in this case, or ever likely to help much in separating the fair use sheep from the infringing goats in a parody case, since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works.”

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. The court made a priority of revealing the degree to which the parody may serve as a market substitute for the original or potentially licensed derivatives.

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Here the court was to determine whether or not the enquiry "must take account not only of harm to the original but also of harm to the market for derivative works." Harper & Row, supra, at 568. “