Gm520 Campbell V Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Co. 510 U.S. 569 (1994)

In: Business and Management

Submitted By slimjones
Words 674
Pages 3
CASE BRIEF

 Style of Case and Citation:

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

 Court Rendering Final Decision:

U.S. Supreme Court

 Identification of Parties and Procedural Details:

Acuff-Rose Music, Inc (plaintiff) sued 2 Live Crew (defendant) because of copyright infringement. District Court of appeals held that the commercial nature of the parody made its acceptance unfair. The court also felt that 2 Live Crew took the heart of the original and made the heart of a new piece of work. Meaning 2 Live Crew had based on some quality copied excessively from the original piece of work. Court. 2 Live Crew appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 Discussion of the Facts: Who did what to whom? What relief is being sought?

Acuff-Rose Music, Inc claims that a parody of copyrighted work is not fair use if the parody has a commercial purpose and copies the heart of the original. The court wanted to try and leave some type of platform in the law for the creation of legitimate parodies of copyrighted work.

 Statement and Discussion of the Legal Issues in Dispute: What decision of the lower court is being challenged? What specific legal questions is the subject court being asked to address? Is the question about Common-Law? A Statute?

Acuff-Rose Music Inc is challenging the Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the district court believe the rap version was in fact a fair use and by doing so granted judgment in favor of 2 Live Crew. The specific legal question of the court being addressed is can a parody of a copyrighted work be fair use if the parody has a commercial purpose and copies the heart of the original. Leading to question the purpose and the character of the use of a commercial nature for profit or would it be for nonprofit education purposes. The question is about statutes.

 Subject Court Final Decision:…...

Similar Documents

Crown Awards, Inc. V. Discount Trophy & Co., Inc.

...Crown Awards, Inc. v. Discount Trophy & Co., Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8540 (2009) Material Facts of the Case: Crown Awards is a retailer of awards and trophies sold through mail order catalogs and via the Internet. Crown designed and sold a diamond-shaped spinning trophy for which it owned two copyright registrations. Discount Trophy is one of Crown’s competitors, and it sold a trophy that was substantially similar to Crown’s Spin Trophy. Crown requested that Discount discontinue the sale of the alleged copy, and when Discount refused, Crown filed suit in the Southern District of New York. Legal and Ethical Issues of the Case: In order to prevail on a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must demonstrate both ownership of a valid copyright and infringement. "To establish infringement, the copyright owner must demonstrate that (1) the defendant has actually copied the plaintiff's work; and (2) the copying is illegal because a substantial similarity exists between the defendant's work and the protectable elements of plaintiff's." Actual copying may be proved directly or indirectly. Indirect evidence of copying includes proof that the defendants had access to the copyrighted work and similarities that are probative of copying between the works." Because direct proof of access is often impossible to adduce, the law permits a plaintiff to carry his burden on this point through evidence that "an alleged infringer......

Words: 963 - Pages: 4

T&W Building Co V. Merrillville Sport & Fitness Inc.

...Running Head: T&W Building Co v. Merrillville Sport & Fitness Inc. T&W Building Co v. Merrillville Sport & Fitness Inc. Keller Graduate School of Management Professor: James Keenan Business Law: Strategic Considerations for Managers & Owners April 2013 Parties T&W Building Company, the landlord, the defendant in the case. Merrillville Sport & Fitness, INC., the tenant, the plaintiff in the case. Facts T&W Building Company entered into a five-year lease agreement as the landlord with Merrillville Sport & Fitness INC., to lease space in a building that would be used as a sports and fitness center. The lease provided that the landlord was to keep the heating and cooling “in good order, repair, and condition” and was to commence required repairs as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving a written notice of the problems. The tenant complained of several problems throughout the first year of their tenancy. First the heating system didn’t work properly, causing the premises to be extremely cold, particularly through the winter months. Second there was no water on several occasions. Third there was only one electrical outlet installed on the premises. As a result of these problems the tenants lost members. They gave notice and vacated the premises within one year of signing the lease. Procedure Finding that constructive eviction occurred, the jury awarded the tenants $36,615.56 in damages. The landlord......

Words: 1332 - Pages: 6

Us V. Fior D'Italia, Inc.

...U.S. v. Fior D'Italia, Inc. 536 U.S. 238, 122 S.Ct. 2117 U.S.,2002. June 17, 2002 (Approx. 17 pages) |[pic] | 536 U.S. 238, 122 S.Ct. 2117, 153 L.Ed.2d 280, 89 A.F.T.R.2d 2002-2883, 70 USLW 4539, 70 USLW 4565, 2002-2 USTC P 50,459, 2002-2 C.B. 875, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 16736B, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5315, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6699, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 383 Briefs and Other Related Documents Judges and Attorneys Oral Argument Transcripts with Streaming Media Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. FIOR D'ITALIA, INC. No. 01-463. Argued April 22, 2002. Decided June 17, 2002. Restaurant challenged use by the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) of aggregate method to determine, assess, and collect its share of Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) taxes on tips received by its employees. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 21 F.Supp.2d 1097, granted summary judgment for restaurant, and IRS appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 242 F.3d 844, affirmed, and certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Justice Breyer, held that: (1) the law authorized the IRS to base its assessment upon its aggregate estimate of all the tips that the restaurant's customers paid its employees; (2) such a method is not precluded by negative implication...

Words: 11729 - Pages: 47

Pliva, Inc. V. Mensing

...PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing Doctors prescribed both Gladys Mensing and Julie Demahy the drug Reglan. They each had their prescriptions filled with the generic equivalent of the name brand drug. After long-term use of this generic drug, Mensing and Demahy developed severe neurologic disorders. The women separately sued Pliva and Actavis, the generic drug manufacturers, making state law failure-to-warn claims, alleging that the drug’s warning label failed to adequately warn them of the risks. Pliva and Actavis argue that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, along with Food and Drug Administration regulations that govern the entire drug approval and labeling process, preempt Mensing and Demahy’s state law claims because it was impossible for Pliva and Actavis to comply with both federal and state law. The companies argue that they could not provide additional warnings beyond what the brand manufacturer provided on its label. In deciding this case, the Supreme Court will ultimately have to weigh the costs born by generic drug manufacturers and the public against the benefits of incentivizing manufacturers to create safer drugs with more complete warnings. After taking metaclopramide for several years, both respondents developed tardive dyskinesia and sued the manufacturers of the medication that they took. The suits were based on failure-to-warn theories under state law. The defendant manufacturers in both cases argued that federal statutes and FDA......

Words: 845 - Pages: 4

Matimak Trading Co. V. Khalily

...Case: Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily 118 F. 3d 76 – Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (1997) Facts: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), Matimak Trading Co. is not a "citizen or subject of a foreign state." Procedure: United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit Issue: Can a corporation based in Hong Kong be considered a citizen or subject of a foreign state for the purposes of alienage jurisdiction? Is Matimak Trading Co. a citizen or subject of a foreign state and therefore subject to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction? Holding: (Vote: 2-1) No, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(2) Reasoning: (Altimari, McLaughlin, and Jacobs, Circuit Judges) A. Rule: The courts ruled Matimak Trading Co. is not a citizen or subjects of a foreign state, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), and there was no other foundation for jurisdiction over Marimak Trading Co. The district court properly dismissed Matimak Training Co.’s suit for the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. B. Application: The Article III constitutional grant of authority that was implemented under the Judiciary Act of 1789 used the terms “foreign” and “alien” instead of “subject” and “citizen.” Since aliens could be involved in litigation with a U.S. citizen, the Framers used this terminology to grant access to federal courts. That terminology was used to open U.S. courts to all foreigns without regard to the government they fall under. Diversity jurisdiction does not apply to a person who is “stateless” or has no......

Words: 314 - Pages: 2

A Pattern-Oriented Approach to Fair Use

.......................... C. The Modern JudicialResponse .................... 1. Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States .......... 2. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc . ............................. 3. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises ............................ 4. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc ................ 5. FairUse in the Circuits ........................ a. Williams & Wilkins and Photocopying:American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc. and Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services . b. Sony and Time-Shifting: A & M Records v. Napster and Recording Industry Association of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems ................ c. Harper & Row and the News: The Los Angeles News Service Cases .......................... d. Campbell and Parody: Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books and SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co ......................... III. FAIR USE TRADITIONS AND PATTERNS ................ A. Fair Use Traditions:Folsom v. Marsh and Nineteenth Century Copyright ..................... B. How the Adoption of § 107 Did Not Change the Law ......................... C. The JudicialResponse Revisited ................... 1. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal Studios, Inc .......................... 2. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises ............................ 3. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc ................ 4. Fair Use and Patternsin the Circuits ............. 1528 1533 1549 1550 1564......

Words: 74799 - Pages: 300

Trial Brief

...matter of law." STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiffs, Issac Slade (“Slade”), Joe King (“King”), Dave Welsh (“Welsh”), and Ben Wysocki (“Wysocki”) collectively known as The Fray, are all apart of an alternative rock music group signed to Epic Records. Compl. ¶ 6. They bring a copyright infringement action against Defendant Washburn. ¶ 1. In 2004, Slade and King artistically created an original musical composition entitled How to Save a Life. Id ¶ 9. Their original work portrayed their sense of skill, judgment, and labor. Id. On July 1, 2004, Plaintiffs Slade and King registered How to Save a Life with the United States Copyright Office.  Id. On or about November 10, 2004, the Plaintiffs fixed the musical composition in a tangible medium in the form of a digital compact disc (“CD”), which was properly registered with the United States Copyright Office about November 12, 2004. Id. ¶ 10. The Copyright Office accepted their submission and issued The Fray and Epic a certificate of copyright registration. Id. The Plaintiffs have ownership to the entire right, title and interest to the song. Id. On July 4, 2006 a digital recording of the song How to Save a Life was publicly released.   Id. ¶ 12. Approximately September 15, 2010, Defendant used the original music for How to Save a Life to compose his version entitled of How to Write a Brief. Id. ¶ 13. The lyrics to the song How to Write a Brief, as recorded by the Defendant, identically followed the format used in the......

Words: 5092 - Pages: 21

After Campbell: Parody

...2 of 1000 DOCUMENTS Copyright (c) 1995 Oklahoma Law Review Oklahoma Law Review Fall, 1995 48 Okla. L. Rev. 627 LENGTH: 15564 words NOTE: Copyright: Same Song, Different Verse: Parody as Fair Use After Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. * * This note won the first place prize in the 1995 ASCAP Nathan Burken Memorial Competition. NAME: L. David McBride LEXISNEXIS SUMMARY: ... First, this note discusses the Copyright Act of 1976 and the fair use doctrine. ... Further, this note evaluates how the defendant used the fair use doctrine as an exception to copyright in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. ... The district court recognized that courts have included parody under the fair use doctrine. ... The district court found that the second factor, the nature of the copyrighted work, weighed against fair use and in favor of Acuff-Rose. ... Judge Joiner, writing for the majority, considered each of the factors in section 107 in determining that the derivative work was not fair use. ... The Supreme Court's Application of the Fair Use Doctrine in Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. v. Campbell ... He observed that the application of the fair use doctrine requires a case-by-case analysis, as opposed to "bright-line rules." Such an approach is necessary because section 107 does not define every type of creative work that a court may exempt under the fair use doctrine. ... However, the Court of Appeals read Sony as presuming unfair use when a derivative work is used......

Words: 11940 - Pages: 48

S & D Petroleum Co., Inc. V. Tamsett

...In 1984 plaintiff engaged defendant, an attorney, to secure a debt of $19,747.56 owed plaintiff by one of its customers, C & H Trucking, Inc. (hereinafter C & H). Defendant prepared a security agreement naming C & H and Charles and Carolyn Waltz, two individuals involved in the trucking concern, as the debtors and giving plaintiff a security interest in a 1984 Mack truck. Typed language, added to the preprinted form, provided that the debt with interest was payable as follows: "Cash on all oil deliveries plus $500.00 payment on account upon delivery of product to the debtor." This was followed by printed language in the form declaring that the collateral also secured "any other indebtedness or liability of the [d]ebtor to the [s]ecured [p]arty direct or indirect, absolute or contingent, due or to become due, now existing or hereafter arising, including all future advances or loans which may be made at the option of the [s]ecured [p]arty". The security agreement was executed but defendant failed to perfect it by filing (see, UCC 9-302 [1]). C & H subsequently paid off the debt and for a time had a credit balance with plaintiff. However, by March 1986 when plaintiff learned that the debtors were insolvent, that the Mack truck had been sold and that the debt was unsecured, the outstanding balance due from C & H exceeded $17,000. Although the Waltzes appear to be effectively judgment-proof, defendant has proceeded on plaintiff's behalf against a third individual associated with C...

Words: 709 - Pages: 3

Apple Inc

...president of the research and education nonprofit Jefferson Institute, MacArthur Fellowship recipient Paul Neal “Red” Adair: oil-well firefighter, innovator in extinguishing oil-well blowouts in Kuwait 1 Roger Ailes: president of Fox News Channel Doug Aitken: multimedia artist Muhammad Ali: professional heavyweight boxer, three-time World Heavyweight Champion John Allman: neuroscientist, expert on human cognition Gloria Allred: civil rights attorney Brad Anderson: former CEO of Best Buy Chris Anderson: curator of TED conferences Philip Anschutz: entrepreneur, cofounder of Major League Soccer, investor in multiple professional sports teams David Ansen: former senior entertainment editor at Newsweek Rose Apodaca: pop culture, fashion, and style journalist Bernard Arnault: chairman and CEO of LVMH Rebecca Ascher-Walsh: journalist, author Isaac Asimov: science fiction author Reza Aslan: scholar of religious studies, author Tony Attwood:psychologist, author of books on Asperger’s syndrome Lesley Bahner: responsible for advertising and motivational research for the Reagan-Bush 1984 presidential campaign F. Lee Bailey: legendary defense attorney who represented Patricia Hearst and Sam Sheppard Evan Bailyn: expert on search-engine optimization, author of Outsmarting Google Letitia Baldrige: etiquette expert, Jacqueline Kennedy’s social secretary Bob Ballard: oceanographer, explorer, underwater archeologist......

Words: 6829 - Pages: 28

Hoover Co. V. Bissell Inc

...I. Synopsis: Case: The HOOVER COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BISSELL INC., Defendant. No. 5:98-CV-1088. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. March 19, 1999. A. The Hoover Company History: Hoover vacuum cleaners have markets in the United States and Canada. In addition to vacuum cleaners, Hoover also produces and sells high quality washers and dryers. Maytag acquired The Hoover Company in 1989, providing Maytag an important foothold in the highly competitive international market. The company roots back to 1827, when Henry Hoover established a plant near Canton, OH. 80 years later led to him and his sons selling vacuum cleaners after purchasing rights to an electric suction sweeper, which was invented a year before by a guy named Murray Spangler. In 1908, Hoover bought Spangler’s patent, kept him as a partner and soon named the company Hoover Suction Sweeper Co. Hoover than began marketing the sweeper in stores all throughout the country. By 1921, Hoover had gone global and by 1923, sales reached $23 million. Hoover today specializes in all floor care and is a continued leader in the industry (Hoover: Fundinguniverse, 2006). B. Bissell Inc. Company History In 1876, Melville Bissell began marketing his carpet sweeper invention with revolving brushes. The revolving brushes picked up the dust and dirt and deposited it inside the sweeper housing. Being dependent on the rotation of the wheels to drive the sweeping mechanism, it only removed debris......

Words: 1456 - Pages: 6

Gm520 Burlington Industries, Inc V Ellerth 524 U.S. 742 (1998)

...CASE BRIEF  Style of Case and Citation: Burlington Industries, Inc v Ellerth 524 U.S. 742 (1998)  Court Rendering Final Decision: U.S. Supreme Court  Identification of Parties and Procedural Details: Kimberly Ellerth (plaintiff) sued Burlington Industries, Inc (defendant) stating that sexual harassment was the cause of her forced discharge. The District Court determined that Mr. Slowik’s behavior created a hostile environment. The courts also found that Burlington Industries did not know and isn’t expected to know about the hostile working environment Mr. Slowik had created. Burlington appealed.  Discussion of the Facts: Who did what to whom? What relief is being sought? Kimberly Ellerth had been constantly sexually harassed by her supervisor Mr. Slowik. Mr. Slowik had the authority to hire, promote or terminate employment. Mr. Slowik made boorish and very offensive remarks to Kimberly. Kimberly filed suit against Burlington for violating Title VII being that sexual harassment lead to her forced resignation.  Statement and Discussion of the Legal Issues in Dispute: What decision of the lower court is being challenged? What specific legal questions is the subject court being asked to address? Is the question about Common-Law? A Statute? Burlington is challenging the court’s decision that their employee Mr. Slowik had in fact created a hostile work environment even though they acknowledged that Burlington didn’t know or was......

Words: 536 - Pages: 3

Rose V. Council for Better Education

...Rose v. Council for Better Education (KY, 1989) Rose v. Council for Better Education challenged Kentucky's school finance system. The organization Council for Better Education, Inc. claimed the system violated the Kentucky Constitution. The clause states that the “General Assembly shall, by appropriate legislation, provide for an efficient system of common schools throughout the state.” (Ky. Const. 183). It also alleged the system violated the due process law clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The council alleged there were state wide inequities and inequalities. The current school finance system failed to provide a quality education for all students in Kentucky due to inadequate funding throughout the state. Plaintiffs from sixty-six rural districts filed a suit. The council modeled the suit after Serrano, stressing the impact on rich districts verses poor districts. The board for the Council for Better Education argued the entire financial system was inefficient. The Council for Better Education received support from a committee called the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence and the committee's coordinator, Robert Sexton. Sexton was instrumental in leading educational reform in Kentucky. The Prichard Committee used the media to publicize a report called A Path to a Larger Life. The report focused on topics crucial to education reform. Some of the topics were school finance, school governance, educational......

Words: 480 - Pages: 2

Copyright Cases in Us

...Case name | Reporter | Court/Year | Findings | Wheaton v. Peters | 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 | 1834 | There is no such thing as common law copyright and one must observe the formalities to secure a copyright. | Baker v. Selden | 101 U.S. 99 | 1879 | Idea-expression divide. | Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony | 111 U.S. 53 | 1884 | Extended copyright protection to photography. | White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company | 209 U.S. 1 | 1908 | Reproduction of the sounds of musical instruments playing music for which copyright granted not a violation of the copyright. | Bobbs-Merrill Co v. Straus | 210 U.S. 339 | 1908 | No license to use copyrighted material. License cannot extend holder's rights beyond statute defined by Congress. | Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell | 229 U.S. 1 | 1913 | Differences between patent and copyright defined also prohibits a license from extending holder's rights beyond statute. | Macmillan Co. v. King | 223 F. 862 | D.Mass. 1914 | Limits of fair use with respect to an educational context and to summaries. | Nichols v. Universal Pictures Co. | 45 F.2d 119 | 2d Cir. 1930 | No copyright for "stock characters". | Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. | 196 Misc. 67, 80 N.Y.S.2d 575 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948), aff'd 275 A.D. 692, 87 N.Y.S.2d 430 (1949) | 1948–9 | No moral rights in public domain works. | Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. | 191 F.2d 99 | 2d. Cir. 1951 | Variations of works in the public......

Words: 1946 - Pages: 8

Hazen Paper Co. V. Biggins 507 U.S. 604 (1993)

...Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins 507 U.S. 604 (1993) Case Study JSale. GB41- Employment Law Professor Shawn Pattinson 1 Do you agree with the court that age and years of service are sufficiently distinct to allow for terminations based on years of service and to find no violation of the ADEA where the terminations result in a greater proportion of older workers being fired? The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the ADEA) forbids discrimination based on age by protecting individuals over the age of forty from “arbitrary” age discrimination. Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to “promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age (29. U.S.C. 621b. 1990). In Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved a split in the circuit courts of appeals and held that an employer does not violate the Act when the employer makes a decision wholly motivated by factors other than age. In Hazen Paper, the employer terminated an employee to prevent the employee from vesting in his pension. Under the employer’s plan, the pension vested based upon the employee’s years of service and was not directly related to age. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument, holding that “age and years of service are analytically distinct” and that it is “incorrect to say that a decision based on years of service is necessarily ‘age-based (Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins. 507 U.S. 604 (1993). The Supreme Court......

Words: 1403 - Pages: 6