Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

1994 United States Supreme Court case

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued November 9, 1993
Decided March 7, 1994
Full case name| Luther R. Campbell a.k.a. Luke Skyywalker, et al., Petitioners v. Acuff-Rose Music, Incorporated
Citations| 510 U.S. 569 (more)

114 S. Ct. 1164; 127 L. Ed. 2d 500; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 2052

Argument| Oral argument
Case history
Prior| 754 F. Supp. 1150 (M.D. Tenn.), appeal dismissed, 929 F.2d 700 (6th Cir. 1991) (table) (text at 1991 WL 43927), rev'd, 972 F.2d 1429 (6th Cir. 1992), cert. granted, 507 U.S. 1003 (1993)
Subsequent| 25 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 1994)
Holding
The commercial nature of a parody does not render it a presumptively unfair use of copyrighted material. Rather, a parody's commercial character is only one element that should be weighed in a fair use inquiry.
Court membership

Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Harry Blackmun * John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor * Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy * David Souter
Clarence Thomas * Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Case opinions
Majority| Souter, joined by unanimous
Concurrence| Kennedy
Laws applied
Copyright Act of 1976; 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 107 (1988)

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court copyright law case that established that a commercial parody can qualify as fair use.[1] This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis.[2]

## History

[edit]

The members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew--Luke Skyywalker (Luther Campbell), Fresh Kid Ice, Mr. Mixx and Brother Marquis--composed a song called "Pretty Woman," a parody based on Roy Orbison's rock ballad, "Oh, Pretty Woman." The group's manager asked Acuff-Rose Music if they could get a license to use Orbison's tune for the ballad to be used as a parody. Acuff-Rose Music refused to grant the band a license but 2 Live Crew nonetheless produced and released the parody.

Almost a year later, after nearly a quarter of a million copies of the recording had been sold, Acuff-Rose sued 2 Live Crew and its record company, Luke Skyywalker Records, for copyright infringement. A federal district court in Nashville, Tennessee granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, reasoning that the commercial purpose of the parody did not bar it from fair use under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 107). The ruling pointed out that 2 Live Crew's parody "quickly degenerates" from the original and only used no more than was necessary of the original to create the parody. For those reasons, the court decided it was "extremely unlikely that 2 Live Crew's song could adversely affect the market for the original."[3] The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors relevant under § 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 § 107 factor; and that market harm for purposes of the fourth § 107 factor had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses.

## Holding

[edit]

The Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of § 107.

Justice Souter began by describing the inherent tension created by the need to simultaneously protect copyrighted material and allow others to build upon it, quoting Lord Ellenborough: "While I shall think myself bound to secure every man in the enjoyment of his copyright, one must not put manacles upon science."

The Court elaborated on this tension, looking to Justice Story's analysis in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841), where he stated, "look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work." This analysis was eventually codified in the Copyright Act of 1976 in § 107 as follows:

> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

>  (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a 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; and

> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The Supreme Court then found the aforementioned factors must be applied to each situation on a case-by-case basis. '"The fact that parody can claim legitimacy for some appropriation does not, of course, tell either parodist or judge much about where to draw the line. Like a book review quoting the copyrighted material criticized, parody may or may not be fair use, and petitioner's suggestion that any parodic use is presumptively fair has no more justification in law or fact than the equally hopeful claim that any use for news reporting should be presumed fair."

When looking at the purpose and character of 2 Live Crew's use, the Court found that the more transformative the new work, the less significant the other three factors. The court found that, in any event, a work's commercial nature is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and character, quoting Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417. The Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals analysis as running counter to this proposition.

Justice Souter then moved onto the second § 107 factor, "the nature of the copyrighted work", finding it has little merit in resolving this and other parody cases, since the artistic value of parodies is often found in their ability to invariably copy popular works of the past.

The Court did find the third factor integral to the analysis, finding that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that, as a matter of law, 2 Live Crew copied excessively from the Orbison original. Souter reasoned that the "amount and substantiality" of the portion used by 2 Live Crew was reasonable in relation to the band's purpose in creating a parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman". The majority reasoned "even if 2 Live Crew's copying of the original's first line of lyrics and characteristic opening bass riff may be said to go to the original's 'heart,' that heart is what most readily conjures up the song for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim." The Supreme Court then looked to the new work as a whole, finding that 2 Live Crew thereafter departed markedly from the Orbison lyrics, producing otherwise distinctive music.

Looking at the final factor, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in finding a presumption or inference of market harm (such as there had been in Sony). Parodies in general, the Court said, will rarely substitute for the original work, since the two works serve different market functions. While Acuff-Rose found evidence of a potential "derivative" rap market in the very fact that 2 Live Crew recorded a rap parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" and another rap group sought a license to record a rap derivative, the Court found no evidence that a potential rap market was harmed in any way by 2 Live Crew's parodic rap version. In fact, the Court found that it was unlikely that any artist would find parody a lucrative derivative market, noting that artists "ask for criticism, but only want praise."

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the case. On remand, the parties settled the case out of court. According to press reports, under terms of the settlement, Acuff-Rose dismissed its lawsuit, and 2 Live Crew agreed to license the sale of its parody of the song. Although Acuff-Rose stated that it was paid under the settlement, the terms were not otherwise disclosed.[4]

Notably, Justice Souter attached the lyrics of both songs as appendixes to his majority opinion for the Court. As a result, both songs were reproduced in the United States Reports along with the rest of the opinion, and may now be found in every major American law library.

## See also

[edit]

* Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc.
* NXIVM Corp. v. The Ross Institute
* Deckmyn v Vandersteen, 2014 European Court of Justice decision on when parodies can be considered derivative works
* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 510
* List of United States Supreme Court cases
* Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
* List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court

## References

[edit]

1. ^ Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
2. ^ "510 U. S. 569 (1994)" (PDF). Library of Congress: 573.
3. ^ 754 F. Supp. 1150, 1154-1155, 1157-1158
4. ^ Acuff-Rose Settles Suit with Rap Group, The Commercial Appeal (Memphis), June 5, 1996.

## Further reading

[edit]

* Leval, Pierre N. (1994). "Campbell v. Acuff-Rose: Justice Souter's Rescue of Fair Use". Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. 13: 19. ISSN 0736-7694.
* Merges, Robert P. (1993). "Are You Making Fun of Me: Notes on Market Failure and the Parody Defense in Copyright". American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal. 21: 305. ISSN 0883-6078.

## External links

[edit]

* Text of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
* Luke Skyywalker Goes to the Supreme Court, animated film on the case

* v
* t
* e

U.S. Supreme Court Article I case law

Enumeration Clause of Section II

* Utah v. Evans (2002)
* Department of Commerce v. New York (2019)
* Trump v. New York (2020)

Qualifications Clauses of Sections II and III

* Powell v. McCormack (1969)
* U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)
* Cook v. Gralike (2001)

Elections Clause of Section IV

* Ex parte Siebold (1879)
* Smiley v. Holm (1932)
* U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)
* Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)
* Moore v. Harper (2023)

Speech or Debate Clause of Section VI

* Kilbourn v. Thompson (1881)
* United States v. Johnson (1966)
* Gravel v. United States (1972)

Origination Clause of Section VII

* Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911)
* United States v. Munoz-Flores (1990)

Presentment Clause of Section VII

* Pocket Veto Case (1929)
* Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (1983)
* Clinton v. City of New York (1998)

Taxing and Spending Clause of Section VIII

* Hylton v. United States (1796)
* Collector v. Day (1871)
* Springer v. United States (1881)
* Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)
* Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (1916)
* Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922)
* United States v. Butler (1936)
* Helvering v. Davis (1937)
* South Dakota v. Dole (1987)
* Sabri v. United States (2004)
* National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

Commerce Clause of Section VIII

| Dormant Commerce Clause|

* Brown v. Maryland (1827)
* Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. (1829)
* Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)
* Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)
* Swift & Co. v. United States (1905)
* George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy (1925)
* Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. (1935)
* Edwards v. California (1941)
* Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (1945)
* Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison (1951)
* Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland (1954)
* Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (1959)
* National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (1967)
* Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970)
* Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. (1976)
* Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady (1977)
* Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)
* City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)
* Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland (1978)
* Reeves, Inc. v. Stake (1980)
* Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. (1981)
* Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas (1982)
* White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers (1983)
* South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke (1984)
* Maine v. Taylor (1986)
* Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc. (1989)
* Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992)
* Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt (1992)
* Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon (1994)
* C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown (1994)
* West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy (1994)
* Granholm v. Heald (2005)
* United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2007)
* Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis (2008)
* Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne (2015)
* South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
* Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas (2019)
* National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023)

|

Others|

* Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
* Passenger Cases (1849)
* Paul v. Virginia (1869)
* Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. Ferguson (1885)
* Kidd v. Pearson (1888)
* In re Debs (1895)
* United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895)
* Champion v. Ames (1903)
* Southern Railway Co. v. United States (1911)
* Hoke v. United States (1913)
* Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States (1914)
* Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
* Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Olsen (1923)
* A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)
* Gold Clause Cases (1935)
* Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935)
* Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)
* NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)
* United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)
* McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. (1940)
* United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941)
* United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942)
* Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
* United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n (1944)
* North American Co. v. SEC (1946)
* H.P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond (1949)
* Henderson v. United States (1950)
* Canton Railroad Co. v. Rogan (1951)
* Boynton v. Virginia (1960)
* Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)
* Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
* Maryland v. Wirtz (1968)
* National League of Cities v. Usery (1976)
* Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association, Inc. (1981)
* Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana (1981)
* EEOC v. Wyoming (1983)
* Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)
* New York v. United States (1992)
* United States v. Lopez (1995)
* Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996)
* Reno v. Condon (2000)
* United States v. Locke (2000)
* Jones v. United States (2000)
* United States v. Morrison (2000)
* Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
* National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
* Taylor v. United States (2016)

Coinage Clause of Section VIII

| Legal Tender Cases|

* Knox v. Lee (1871)
* Juilliard v. Greenman (1884)

|

Copyright Clause of Section VIII

| Copyright Act of 1790|

* Wheaton v. Peters (1834)
* Paige v. Banks (1872)
* Globe Newspaper Co. v. Walker (1908)

|

Patent Act of 1793|

* Tyler v. Tuel (1810)
* Evans v. Eaton (1818)
* Evans v. Eaton (1822)
* Evans v. Hettich (1822)

Patent infringement case law|

* Evans v. Jordan (1815)
* Hollister v. Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co. (1885)
* Rowell v. Lindsay (1885)
* Schillinger v. United States (1894)
* Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell (1913)
* General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co. (1938)

Patentability case law|

* Pennock v. Dialogue (1829)
* Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1851)
* O'Reilly v. Morse (1853)
* Cochrane v. Deener (1876)
* City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co. (1878)
* Egbert v. Lippmann (1881)
* Consolidated Safety-Valve Co. v. Crosby Steam Gauge & Valve Co. (1885)
* Voss v. Fisher (1885)

Copyright Act of 1831|

* Wheaton v. Peters (1834)
* Backus v. Gould (1849)
* Stephens v. Cady (1853)
* Stevens v. Gladding (1854)
* Little v. Hall (1856)
* Paige v. Banks (1872)
* Baker v. Selden (1879)
* Callaghan v. Myers (1888)
* Higgins v. Keuffel (1891)
* Holmes v. Hurst (1899)
* Brady v. Daly (1899)
* Bolles v. Outing Co. (1899)
* Mifflin v. R. H. White Company (1903)
* Mifflin v. Dutton (1903)

Copyright Act of 1870|

* Perris v. Hexamer (1879)
* Trade-Mark Cases (1879)
* Merrell v. Tice (1881)
* Schreiber v. Sharpless (1884)
* Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884)
* Thornton v. Schreiber (1888)
* Banks v. Manchester (1888)
* Callaghan v. Myers (1888)
* Thompson v. Hubbard (1889)
* Higgins v. Keuffel (1891)
* Belford v. Scribner (1892)
* Brady v. Daly (1899)
* Bolles v. Outing Co. (1899)
* Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. (1903)
* McLoughlin v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Co. (1903)
* American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister (1907)
* Werckmeister v. American Tobacco Co. (1907)
* United Dictionary Co. v. G. & C. Merriam Co. (1907)
* White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. (1908)
* Dun v. Lumbermen's Credit Ass'n (1908)
* Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus (1908)
* Scribner v. Straus (1908)
* Bong v. Campbell Art Co. (1909)
* Henry v. A.B. Dick Co. (1912)

Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890|

* Straus v. American Publishers Association (1913)
* Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States (1939)
* Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC (1941)
* United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (1948)
* Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS Inc. (1979)

International Copyright Act of 1891|

* Press Pub. Co. v. Monroe (1896)
* McLoughlin v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Co. (1903)
* American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister (1907)
* White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. (1908)
* Globe Newspaper Co. v. Walker (1908)
* Bong v. Campbell Art Co. (1909)
* Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co. (1909)
* Hills and Co. v. Hoover (1911)
* Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros. (1911)

Copyright Act of 1909|

* Hills and Co. v. Hoover (1911)
* DeJonge and Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co. (1914)
* Herbert v. Shanley Co. (1917)
* Manners v. Morosco (1920)
* Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles (1923)
* Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co. (1931)
* Douglas v. Cunningham (1935)
* Washingtonian Pub. Co. v. Pearson (1939)
* Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. (1940)
* Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons (1943)
* F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc. (1952)
* Mazer v. Stein (1954)
* De Sylva v. Ballentine (1956)
* Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. (1964)
* Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States (1973)

Patent misuse case law|

* Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Manufacturing Co. (1917)
* Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co. (1942)

Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914|

* Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC (1941)
* Dowling v. United States (1985)

Lanham Act|

* Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. (1982)
* San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987)
* Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992)
* Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (1995)
* College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (1999)
* Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2001)
* TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (2001)
* Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003)
* Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. (2003)
* Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014)
* POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. (2014)
* Matal v. Tam (2017)
* Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
* Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. (2020)

Copyright Act of 1976|

* Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977)
* Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984)
* Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder (1985)
* Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985)
* Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989)
* Stewart v. Abend (1990)
* Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991)
* Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (1994)
* Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)
* Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. (1996)
* Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc. (1998)
* Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. (1998)
* New York Times Co. v. Tasini (2001)
* Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)
* MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005)
* Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick (2010)
* Golan v. Holder (2012)
* Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013)
* Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (2014)
* American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (2014)
* Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (2017)
* Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (2019)
* Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. (2019)
* Allen v. Cooper (2020)
* Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020)

Other copyright cases|

* American Lithographic Co. v. Werkmeister (1911)
* Ferris v. Frohman (1912)
* Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey v. Steinhauser (1914)
* International News Service v. Associated Press (1918)
* L. A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1919)
* Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc. (1923)
* Educational Films Corp. v. Ward (1931)
* Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal (1932)
* George v. Victor Talking Machine Co. (1934)
* KVOS v. Associated Press (1936)
* Gibbs v. Buck (1939)
* Buck v. Gallagher (1939)
* Commissioner v. Wodehouse (1949)
* Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc. (1960)
* Pub. Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover (1962)
* Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc. (1968)
* Goldstein v. California (1973)
* Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting (1974)
* Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken (1975)

Other patent cases|

* Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (1908)
* Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde (1916)
* United States v. General Electric Co. (1926)
* United States v. Univis Lens Co. (1942)
* Altvater v. Freeman (1943)
* Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. (1945)
* Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. (1948)
* Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950)
* Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950)
* Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1961)
* Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. (1964)
* Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther (1964)
* Brulotte v. Thys Co. (1964)
* Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (1965)
* Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966)
* United States v. Adams (1966)
* Brenner v. Manson (1966)
* Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (1969)
* Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. (1969)
* Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971)
* Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)
* United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. (1973)
* Dann v. Johnston (1976)
* Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. (1976)
* Parker v. Flook (1978)
* Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
* Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
* Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989)
* Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. (1990)
* Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)
* Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. (1997)
* Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. (1998)
* Dickinson v. Zurko (1999)
* Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank (1999)
* J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001)
* Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
* Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. (2005)
* eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006)
* Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. (2006)
* LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. (2006)
* MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007)
* KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007)
* Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (2007)
* Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2008)
* Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
* Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (2011)
* Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (2011)
* Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership (2011)
* Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012)
* Kappos v. Hyatt (2012)
* Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013)
* Gunn v. Minton (2013)
* Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013)
* FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013)
* Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)
* Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (2014)
* Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (2015)
* Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015)
* Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2016)
* TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)
* Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. (2019)

Other trademark cases|

* G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Syndicate Pub. Co. (1915)
* Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. (1938)
* Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V. (2020)

Necessary and Proper Clause of Section VIII

* McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
* Lambert v. Yellowley (1926)
* Sabri v. United States (2004)
* Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
* United States v. Comstock (2010)
* United States v. Kebodeaux (2013)

Habeas corpus Suspension Clause of Section IX

* Ex parte Bollman (1807)
* Ex parte Merryman (1861)
* Ex parte Endo (1944)
* Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr (2001)
* Boumediene v. Bush (2008)
* Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020)

No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause of Section IX

* Calder v. Bull (1798)
* Sturges v. Crowninshield (1819)
* Ex parte Garland (1866)
* Hawker v. New York (1898)
* Samuels v. McCurdy (1925)
* Garner v. Board of Public Works (1951)
* De Veau v. Braisted (1960)
* Barr v. City of Columbia (1964)
* Teague v. Lane (1989)
* Kansas v. Hendricks (1997)
* Smith v. Doe (2003)

Contract Clause of Section X

| Legal Tender Cases|

* Hepburn v. Griswold (1870)

|

Others|

* Fletcher v. Peck (1810)
* Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)
* Sturges v. Crowninshield (1819)
* Ogden v. Saunders (1827)
* Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)
* Bronson v. Kinzie (1843)
* Stone v. Mississippi (1880)
* Smyth v. Ames (1898)
* Block v. Hirsh (1921)
* Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934)
* W.B. Worthen Co. v. Kavanaugh (1935)
* City of El Paso v. Simmons (1965)
* U.S. Trust Co. of N.Y. v. New Jersey (1977)
* Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus (1978)
* Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas P. & L. Co. (1983)
* Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton (1983)
* Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis (1987)
* Sveen v. Melin (2018)

Import-Export Clause of Section X

* Brown v. Maryland (1827)
* Canton Railroad Co. v. Rogan (1951)

Compact Clause of Section X

* Florida v. Georgia (1855)
* Virginia v. West Virginia (1871)
* Virginia v. Tennessee (1893)
* Wharton v. Wise (1894)
* Northeast Bancorp v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors (1985)
* New Jersey v. New York (1998)
* Virginia v. Maryland (2003)
* Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez (2009)
* Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado (2018)

* v
* t
* e

2 Live Crew

* Luke
* Fresh Kid Ice
* Mr. Mixx
* Brother Marquis
* Amazing Vee
* Verb

Studio albums|

* The 2 Live Crew Is What We Are
* Move Somethin'
* As Nasty as They Wanna Be
* Banned in the U.S.A.
* Sports Weekend (As Nasty as They Wanna Be Part II)
* Back at Your Ass for the Nine-4
* Shake a Lil' Somethin'
* The Real One

Live albums|

* Live in Concert

Compilation albums|

* Deal with This

Singles|

* "Me So Horny"
* "Banned in the U.S.A."
* "Do the Bart"
* "Pop That Coochie"

Related articles|

* Discography
* Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

* v
* t
* e

Copyright law of the United States

* 17 U.S.C.
* Copyright Clause
* United States Copyright Office
* Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices
* CARP → CRB
* Copyright Catalog
* Register of Copyrights
* Section 108 Study Group
* Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States
* Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States

Statutes|

| Pre-1976|

* Copyright Act of 1790
* Copyright Act of 1831
* Copyright Act of 1870
* International Copyright Act of 1891
* Printing Act of 1895
* Copyright Act of 1909

|

1970s|

* Copyright Act of 1976

1980s|

* Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988

1990s|

* Visual Artists Rights Act (1990)
* Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (1990)
* Copyright Renewal Act of 1992
* Audio Home Recording Act (1992)
* Uruguay Round Agreements Act (1994)
* No Electronic Theft Act (1994)
* Copyright Term Extension Act (1998)
* Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998
* Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998)
* Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
* WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act

2000s|

* Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (2005)

2010s|

* Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act (2014)
* Music Modernization Act (2018)

2020s|

* CASE Act (2020)

Precedents
and rulings|

| Supreme Court|

* Wheaton v. Peters (1834)
* Baker v. Selden (1879)
* Trade-Mark Cases (1879)
* Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884)
* Banks v. Manchester (1888)
* Callaghan v. Myers (1888)
* Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus (1908)
* White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. (1908)
* Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States (1975)
* Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984)
* Feist v. Rural (1991)
* Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)
* Quality King v. L'anza (1998)
* Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)
* MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005)
* Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S. A. (2010)
* Golan v. Holder (2012)
* Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013)
* American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (2014)
* Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands (2017)
* Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com (2019)
* Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020)
* Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (2021)
* Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (2023)

|

Appeals courts|

* Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc. (2d Cir. 1964)
* Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co. (9th Cir. 1970)
* Eltra Corp. v. Ringer (4th Cir. 1978)
* Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates (9th Cir. 1978)
* Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc. (7th Cir. 1983)
* Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. (3d Cir. 1983)
* Fisher v. Dees (9th Cir. 1986)
* Whelan v. Jaslow (3d Cir. 1986)
* Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (5th Cir. 1988)
* Rogers v. Koons (2nd Cir. 1992)
* Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. (2d Cir. 1992)
* American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc. (2nd Cir. 1995)
* Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.(9th Cir. 1997)
* Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. (2d Cir. 1998)
* Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp. (9th Cir. 2000)
* Nunez v. Caribbean Int'l News Corp. (1st Cir. 2000)
* A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (9th Cir. 2001)
* Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l (5th Cir. 2002)
* Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. (9th Cir. 2002 / 2003)
* In re Aimster Copyright Litigation (7th Cir. 2003)
* NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute (2d Cir. 2004)
* BMG Music v. Gonzalez (7th Cir. 2005)
* Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd. (2nd Cir. 2006)
* Blanch v. Koons (2nd Cir. 2006)
* Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (9th Cir. 2006)
* Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc. (2nd Cir. 2008)
* Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc. (9th Cir. 2010)
* Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha (2d Cir. 2011)
* Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc. (9th Cir. 2012)
* Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. (2d Cir. 2012)
* Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc (9th Cir. 2013)
* Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (2d Cir. 2015)
* Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (9th Cir. 2015)
* Naruto v. Slater (9th Cir. 2018)

Lower courts|

* Folsom v. Marsh (C.C.D. Mass. 1841)
* Elektra Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. 1973)
* Broderbund Software Inc. v. Unison World, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1986)
* Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena (M.D. Fla. 1993)
* Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
* RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc. (W.D. Wash. 2000)
* Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co. (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
* Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
* Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
* Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2015)
* Hachette v. Internet Archive (S.D.N.Y. 2023)
* Universal Music Group v. Internet Archive (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

* Berne Convention
* Uruguay Round
* Don't Copy That Floppy
* Home Recording Rights Coalition
* Nimmer on Copyright
* "You Wouldn't Steal a Car"

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template