Supreme Court Case/ Decision of the Court

Supreme Court Case/ Decision of the Court.
The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song under section 107 of the Copyright Act. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors relevant under section 107; that, by taking the “heart” of the original and making it the “heart” of a new work, 2 Live Crew had taken too much under the third section 107 factor; and that market harm for purposes of the fourth section 107 factor had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses. The Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew’s commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of section 107. Once again these are the four factors under section 107 of the Copyright Act: 1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. 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 for, or value of, the copyrighted work. The Court of Appeals made a mistake when it came to the commercial nature of that parody by way of a presumption, apparently gathered from Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. 464 U.S 417, 451, that, “ Every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively unfair.” There was no evidence available to address either the character and purpose of the use or the market harm. The appellate court had made a mistake in holding that 2 Live Crew had necessarily copied excessively from the Orbison original, considering the way the parody was put to use. The Supreme Court also came to a conclusion that each case should be put to light on a case by case basis. Each case may have some similarities, but each case are also worlds apart when it comes to copyright cases. The Supreme Court voted 9 votes for Cambell, 0 votes for Acuff.