A parody is a type of satire that holds up the original to contempt ridicule or

A parody is a type of satire that holds up the

This preview shows page 162 - 164 out of 216 pages.

up very well when the four-factor analysis above is employed. A parody is a type of satire that holds up the original to contempt, ridicule, or scorn. For example, in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc ., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the Supreme Court concluded that the rap group 2 Live Crew had engaged in a legally justified fair use in the 1980s when it composed and recorded its rap version of the 1960s pop song “Oh, Pretty Woman.” The 1980s rap version used the same very distinctive bass riff several times as had been used in the original, and also used the identical one-line chorus multiple times. The remainder of the lyrics were quite different, though. The lyrics of the original had presented the sanitized fantasies of a young man trying to pick up a girl in a city, whereas the later rap version used bawdy lyrics showing the harsh realities of such a relationship in a big city late at night. The mere fact that 2 Live Crew made a rap version of the original did not prove fair use, but the Court’s conclusion that the rap version made fun of the boy’s unrealistic fantasy in the original did lead to a finding of fair use. EXAMPLE Alice buys a copy the game Elf War on CD-Rom. She makes a single backup copy and gives the copy to her sister. Has Alice violated the game’s copyright? A. No, because consumers are allowed to make a single backup copy. B. No, because of the fair use defense. C. No, for reasons A and B. D. Yes ANSWER: D. A backup copy is allowed, but it cannot be given to another person, including a family member. And since she copied the entire game and reduced the market for new copies (now her sister has no further need to buy her own copy), Alice has not made a fair use of the software. NEXT: Module 43 is the fourth of the review exercises.
Image of page 162
9/25/2018 Print canvas 163/216 Module 43: Review Exercise #4 Time now for the fourth of the five review modules. As usual, there is no new information here – the scenario in the module covers many concepts from the recent modules on intellectual property. Remember also that this is not a scored quiz. It is just an exercise to help reinforce what we have covered recently. We pick up our story where the previous review modules left off. The lawsuit against Roger Smith described in the first exercise, the episode with Neighbor Ned, and the difficulties completing the sale of his restaurant are in the past. Roger’s restaurant has sold, and he is looking for new commercial ventures. Tired of paying $4 a can for energy drinks, he started experimenting with his own recipes in his kitchen at home. Eventually, he stumbled across a terrific formula. He jokingly called it “Morning Blast,” and started selling it to a few select friends and neighbors. Most of them loved it. Word spread, and more of Roger’s neighbors started to ask him about it. Soon, he started to sell bottles of his creation. Roger hired an artist to design a logo for the bottles, and the design - an old man with steam shooting out of his ears – has made the drink even more popular. Roger begins to suspect he might eventually make far more from the drink than he ever did from owning his restaurant.
Image of page 163
Image of page 164

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 216 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • BREDESON
  • Common Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Trial court, State court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture