Posters, rap songs, television programs, movies and novels are all examples of works in which their authors used copyrighted material without permission and, when challenged, claimed their works were protected by the “fair use” doctrine. With increasing frequency, the success or failure of this defense depends on whether the challenged work “parodies” the pre-existing work. Because the criteria used to answer this question are subject to interpretation by the fact-finder—e.g., does the new work “comment on” or “transform” the work being parodied?—in order to provide flexibility in balancing the competing interests of the First Amendment and the copyright owner’s ability to control his work, the parody fair use defense provides fertile ground for creative lawyering.
This article examines how courts have analyzed whether an asserted parody qualifies for fair use protection in the leading Supreme Court case of Campbell v. Acuff-Ross Music Inc.1 and its progeny, including the recently issued, currently on appeal, decision from the Southern District of New York in Salinger v. Colting,2 in which the parody fair use defense was rejected at the preliminary injunction stage.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
