Supreme Court of the United StatesCopyright & Fair Use

Decided 1994

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

510 U.S. 569 (1994)· Docket No. 92-1292· Opinion by Justice David Souter (9-0 (Unanimous))

Ontological Knowledge Graph Fingerprint

Niche Legal Sub-Discipline Tags:

#computational-fair-useSettled Safe Harbor

Mass downloading and vector conversion of copyrighted text, imagery, and code for analytical ingestion where the end-user query output is non-substitutive.

↳ Statutory Hook: 17 U.S.C. § 107 (Factor 1 Transformativeness)

#micro-sampling-quantizationActive Circuit Split

The inter-circuit split between the Sixth Circuit (zero tolerance license rule) and Ninth Circuit (allowing de minimis sound recording sampling).

↳ Statutory Hook: 17 U.S.C. § 106 & § 114

Ontologically Correlated Precedents (3):Sorted by Shared Sub-Discipline Alignment

Warhol v. Goldsmith50% MATCH

#computational-fair-use

Supreme (2023)Inspect Precedent

Google v. Oracle50% MATCH

#computational-fair-use

Supreme (2021)Inspect Precedent

Authors Guild v. Google33% MATCH

#computational-fair-use

United (2015)Inspect Precedent

GOOD LAW · BINDING AUTHORITY

Foundational SCOTUS precedent for transformative fair use (9-0). Scope of commercial parody affirmed; commercial presumption rejected.

OPERATIVE SIGNALS & RISK DISSECTION

BINDING PRECEDENT

Operative Judicial Rule

Commerciality creates no presumption of unfairness if the secondary work is genuinely transformative.

Practical Tech Impact

Protected modern digital sampling, reverse engineering, and transformative software parody.

Precedential Standing & Risk

Binding SCOTUS Precedent (9-0 Unanimous)

Formal Judicial Holding:

“A commercial parody may qualify as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. The commercial nature of a secondary use does not create an automatic presumption against fair use; rather, the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of commercialism under Factor 1.”

PRECEDENTIAL RULE MUTATION FLOWCHART

DOCTRINAL VECTOR

1. Antecedent Doctrine

Commercial use presumptively unfair (Sony dictum); strict adherence to market injury.

Historical Rule

2. Factual Catalyst / Friction

2 Live Crew commercial rap parody copied iconic guitar riff and first lyric line without license.

Judicial Distinction

3. Recalibrated Holding

Transformative use formalization: deeper transformation reduces commercial weight; parody targets original.

New Operative Rule

4. Downstream Effect

Became universal bedrock standard for digital collage, software emulation, and web indexing.

Current Standing

Factual Background:

In 1989, Luther Campbell and his rap music group 2 Live Crew wrote a parody of Roy Orbison and William Dees's classic rock ballad 'Oh, Pretty Woman'. 2 Live Crew copied the characteristic opening bass riff and the first line of the original lyrics, but quickly substituted shocking and comedic rap verses that satirized the romanticized nostalgia of the original. Acuff-Rose Music, which held the copyright, refused to grant a retroactive license and sued for copyright infringement.

Procedural Posture & Issue:

On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit had reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of 2 Live Crew, holding that commercial use was presumptively unfair.

Issue: Whether 2 Live Crew's commercial parody of 'Oh, Pretty Woman' constitutes a fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107, and whether a commercial secondary use creates an irrebuttable presumption against fair use under Factor 1.

Judicial Reasoning & Statutory Construction

1.Factor 1 Inquiry: The central purpose of the first factor is to see whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character (Judge Pierre Leval's transformative use doctrine).
2.Parody inherently requires copying: Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so warrants copying some of the original's expression—the very 'heart' of the work.
3.Rejection of the Sony Presumption: The Court clarified that dictum in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios (1984) stating that commercial use is presumptively unfair was not an absolute rule for transformative works.
4.Factor 4 and Parodic Market Harm: The market harm under Factor 4 must be harm caused by commercial substitution, not harm caused by a scathing critique or parody that suppresses demand through ridicule.

Doctrinal Significance & Precedential Legacy:

Campbell is the bedrock foundational pillar of modern fair use jurisprudence in the United States. It formalized Judge Pierre Leval's concept of 'transformative use', cementing the rule that secondary creations adding new expression, meaning, or message are entitled to heightened fair use protection even when sold for commercial profit.

Statutory Hooks & Precedents Cited:

17 U.S.C. § 107(1)17 U.S.C. § 107(4)Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841)Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990)

Downstream Impact:

Empowered generation of digital sampling, visual collage, and parody art in the late 1990s and 2000s.Served as the core doctrinal precedent cited by Google in Authors Guild v. Google (2015) and Google v. Oracle (2021).Narrowed and recalibrated by SCOTUS in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (2023).

Canonical Bluebook / APA Citation:Official CourtListener / Justia Repository

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).