1. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Who Won: 2 Live Crew (Campbell)
Who Lost: Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
Main Arguments:
Acuff-Rose argued that 2 Live Crew’s parody of “Oh, Pretty Woman” infringed on their copyright.
2 Live Crew argued that their version was a parody and therefore fair use.
Ruling and Reasoning:
The Court ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew, stating that their version was indeed a parody. The Court used several criteria to reach this conclusion:
Transformative Nature: The Court found that 2 Live Crew’s version added new expression and meaning to the original. It was not merely a direct copy but had new lyrics that criticized and commented on the original.
Commercial Nature: Although 2 Live Crew’s version was commercial, the Court noted that commerciality is only one element to consider in fair use and not decisive by itself.
Amount and Substantiality: The Court found that although 2 Live Crew had borrowed the opening musical tag and the word “pretty woman,” the amount taken was reasonable for the purpose of parody.
Effect on Market: The Court stated that a parody’s impact on the market for the original work is not necessarily negative. In fact, a parody can act as a form of criticism that can only minimally affect the market value of the original.
Implications: This case set a precedent that parodies can be considered fair use, even if they are commercial in nature.
2. SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co. (2001)
Court: 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Who Won: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Who Lost: SunTrust Bank
Main Arguments:
SunTrust, representing the estate of Margaret Mitchell, argued that “The Wind Done Gone” infringed on “Gone with the Wind.”
Houghton Mifflin argued that the work was a parody.
Ruling and Reasoning: The Court ruled that “The Wind Done Gone” was a parody and therefore fair use.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Houghton Mifflin, stating that “The Wind Done Gone” was a parody and therefore constituted fair use. The court determined that the work was a parody because it provided a critique of the original work’s depiction of slavery and the Civil War-era South. By telling the story from a different perspective, the work aimed to criticize and comment on the original, fulfilling one of the key criteria for being considered a parody under U.S. copyright law.
Implications: The case expanded the scope of what can be considered a parody under fair use.
3. Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc. (2002)
Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Who Won: MCA Records
Who Lost: Mattel
Main Arguments:
Mattel argued that the song “Barbie Girl” infringed on their trademark and copyright.
MCA Records argued it was a parody.
Ruling and Reasoning
The court ruled in favor of MCA Records, determining that the song “Barbie Girl” was indeed a parody. The court’s reasoning was based on several factors:
- Commentary and Critique: The court found that the song was commenting on the Barbie image and critiquing the values it represented. The song lyrics portrayed Barbie as a materialistic and shallow character, thus providing a commentary on the cultural icon.
- Transformative Nature: The court noted that the song did not merely replicate the original Barbie but added new expression and meaning, making it transformative.
- No Confusion: The court also considered the likelihood of consumer confusion, concluding that the song did not confuse consumers into thinking Mattel produced it.
- First Amendment: The court emphasized that trademark rights do not entitle the owner to quash an unauthorized use of the mark by another who is communicating ideas or expressing points of view.
Implications: This case clarified that parodies can comment on cultural icons and still be considered fair use.
4. Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books USA (1996)
Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Who Won: Dr. Seuss Enterprises
Who Lost: Penguin Books
Main Arguments:
Dr. Seuss argued that “The Cat NOT in the Hat!” infringed on their copyright.
Penguin Books argued it was a parody.
Ruling and Reasoning:
The court ruled that “The Cat NOT in the Hat!” was not a true parody of “The Cat in the Hat.” The reasoning was based on the definition of parody as something that must mimic an original work to make a point about that original work. In this case, “The Cat NOT in the Hat!” used the style of Dr. Seuss not to comment on or criticize the original work, but to tell a story about a completely different subject, the O.J. Simpson trial. Therefore, it did not meet the criteria for parody under fair use.
Implications: This case set a boundary on what can be considered a parody under fair use.
5. Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. (1998)
Court: Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Who Won: Paramount Pictures
Who Lost: Leibovitz
Main Arguments:
Leibovitz argued that a movie poster for “Naked Gun 33⅓” infringed on her photograph.
Paramount argued it was a parody.
Ruling and Reasoning:
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Paramount Pictures, stating that the poster was a parody that transformed the original work’s expression for a new purpose, which is one of the key factors in determining fair use. The court’s reasoning was based on the transformative nature of the work and its new context, which was comedic and intended to promote a movie. The poster did not diminish the market value of the original photograph, another factor considered in fair use cases. Therefore, the court concluded that the work was a parody protected under the fair use doctrine.
Implications: This case clarified that visual works can also be subject to parody as fair use.
6. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC (2007)
Court: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
Who Won: Haute Diggity Dog
Who Lost: Louis Vuitton
Main Arguments:
Louis Vuitton argued that dog toys resembling their handbags infringed on their trademark.
Haute Diggity Dog argued it was a parody.
Ruling and Reasoning:
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Haute Diggity Dog, stating that their dog toys, which resembled Louis Vuitton handbags, were an effective parody and therefore did not infringe on Louis Vuitton’s trademark.
- Distinctive Naming: The court noted that the names of the dog toys, like “Chewy Vuiton,” were plays on the Louis Vuitton name, clearly intending to evoke humor and comment on the original products.
- Visual Similarity with Differences: While the dog toys mimicked the appearance of Louis Vuitton products, they were also clearly different and exaggerated, making it unlikely for consumers to confuse them with actual Louis Vuitton merchandise.
- Nature of the Product: The court also considered the nature of the product itself—a dog toy—as contributing to its parodic character. The absurdity of comparing a luxury handbag to a chew toy for dogs added to its parodic intent.
- Commentary on Original: The court found that the dog toys were commenting on the luxury and exclusivity of Louis Vuitton products by reducing them to items that dogs would chew on. This was seen as a form of social commentary, a key element in defining a work as a parody.
- No Confusion: The court also took into account that the parody was not likely to cause confusion among consumers about the source of the product, another critical factor in trademark cases.
Implications: This case expanded the concept of parody to include products that mimic luxury goods.
7. Blanch v. Koons (2006)
Court: Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Who Won: Koons
Who Lost: Blanch
Main Arguments:
Blanch argued that Koons’ artwork infringed on her copyrighted photograph.
Koons argued it was a parody.
Ruling and Reasoning:
The court did not specifically label Koons’ work as a “parody,” but rather focused on its “transformative” nature, which is a key factor in fair use cases. The court found that Koons had transformed the original photograph’s meaning and message through new expression, insights, and understandings. Koons argued that his use of Blanch’s photograph was to comment on the social and aesthetic consequences of mass media. His work aimed to critique the banality and artificiality of consumer culture, which was a different purpose than Blanch’s original photograph.
The court also considered other fair use factors, such as the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and the effect of the use on the market value of the original work. The court concluded that Koons’ work did not negatively impact the potential market for Blanch’s photograph.
Implications: This case expanded the scope of fair use in visual art.
8. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Who Won: Hustler Magazine
Who Lost: Falwell
Main Arguments:
Falwell argued that a parody ad in Hustler Magazine was damaging.
Hustler argued it was a parody protected by the First Amendment.
Ruling and Reasoning:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hustler Magazine. The Court stated that the parody ad could not reasonably be understood to describe true facts about Falwell. It was an exaggerated, outrageous piece meant to be humorous and satirical. The Court emphasized that public figures like Falwell must have a higher tolerance for parody and satire, especially when they have thrust themselves into the public eye.
The Court also noted that the First Amendment protects not just “the thought that we hate,” but also the humor that we may find to be in bad taste. Therefore, the Court determined that the work was a parody protected by the First Amendment, and Falwell’s emotional distress claim was dismissed.
Implications: This case set a precedent that parodies of public figures are protected speech.
9. Air Pirates v. Disney (1979)
Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Who Won: Disney
Who Lost: Air Pirates
Main Arguments:
Disney argued that Air Pirates’ comics infringed on their copyrighted characters.
Air Pirates argued it was a parody.
Ruling and Reasoning:
The court determined that the work was not a true parody. One of the key factors in this decision was the extent to which the Air Pirates’ comics copied Disney’s original characters. The court found that the Air Pirates had taken “the heart” of Disney’s copyrighted characters, going beyond what was necessary to conjure up the original work. In other words, the copying was excessive and not limited to what was needed for the parodic purpose.
The court also considered the intent behind the work. A true parody would aim to comment on or criticize the original work, but the court found that the Air Pirates’ primary intent was not to comment on Disney’s characters but rather to appropriate them for independent stories.
Implications: This case set limitations on how copyrighted characters can be used in parodies.
10. Rogers v. Koons (1992)
Court: Second Circuit Court of Appeals
Who Won: Rogers
Who Lost: Koons
Main Arguments:
Rogers argued that Koons’ sculpture infringed on his copyrighted photograph.
Koons argued it was a parody.
Ruling and Reasoning:
In the case of Rogers v. Koons, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Art Rogers, the photographer whose copyrighted photograph was used by artist Jeff Koons to create a sculpture. The court determined that Koons’ work was not a parody for several reasons:
- Lack of Target: A key element of parody is that it must comment on or criticize the original work. The court found that Koons’ sculpture did not specifically target or comment on Rogers’ original photograph but was rather a commentary on society at large.
- Transformative Use: The court considered whether the new work transformed the original work’s expression, meaning, or message. They concluded that Koons’ sculpture did not sufficiently transform the original photograph to qualify as a parody.
- Commercial Nature: Koons’ sculpture was sold for a significant amount of money, and the court considered the commercial nature of the work as a factor against fair use.
- Amount and Substantiality: The court noted that Koons had copied a substantial amount of the original photograph, further weighing against a finding of fair use.
Implications: This case set a boundary for what can be considered a visual parody under fair use.
These cases have collectively shaped the legal landscape for parody makers, setting both limits and freedoms under the doctrine of fair use.
