Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (620,000)
UTM (20,000)
CCT (1,000)
CCT206H5 (100)
Lecture 4

CCT206H5 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: 2 Live Crew, Supreme Court Of The United States, Substantial Similarity


Department
Communication, Culture and Technology
Course Code
CCT206H5
Professor
Anthony Wensley
Lecture
4

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 3 pages of the document.
CCT206 LEC 4
30.01.14
Copyright Infringement
When you do copyright for a song:
o Composition copyright
o Recording rights
 Lie Cre used Pretty Woa
Did’t gai perissio ut gae redit
o Sold hundreds of thousands of copies
Owners decided to sue a year later
Courts denied claim
o Summary Judgment: When court decides that something is so obvious, there is no
reaso to go to trial, to sae eeryoe’s tie.
Plaintiff Appealed
6th Circuit said it was not fair use, because 2 Live Crew made money off of it.
4 Fair Use Factors
1. The purpose and character of the use (Commercial or nonprofit)
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.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market value of the copyrighted work
o usually the most serious one that courts weight in on.
So for 2 Live Crews case
1. They used the material to make money (commercial)
2. Pretty Woman is a well known commercial success.
3. The lyrics are similar, the baseline, snare, are all recognizable.
o The Riff is the ore of Pretty Woa so you ko he you hear it ayhere, hat
song it is.
4. Appellate Court Presumed that because it was a commercial work, the consumption
was negatively affecting the market value.
o Ee if it does’t opete i the sae arket plae.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CAMPBELL, aka SKYWALKER, et al. v. ACUFF ROSE
MUSIC, INC., 1994
Held:  Lie Cre’s oerial parody ay e a fair use within the meaning of Section
107
o “etio , hih proides that the fair use of the opyrighted ork… for purposes
suh as ritiis [or] oet…is ot a ifrigeet…,
o The Court of Appeals properly assued that  Lie Cre’s sog otains parody
commenting on and criticizing the original work, but erred in giving virtually dispositive weight
to the commercial nature of that parody.
o The Court of Appeals erred in holding that, as a matter of law, 2 Live Crew copied
excessively from the original
Copyright Infringement
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version