100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
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 theoriginal to contempt, ridicule, or scorn.For example, in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the Supreme Court concludedthat the rap group 2 Live Crew had engaged in a legally justified fair use in the 1980s when it composed andrecorded its rap version of the 1960s pop song “Oh, Pretty Woman.” The 1980s rap version used the samevery distinctive bass riff several times as had been used in the original, and also used the identical one-linechorus multiple times. The remainder of the lyrics were quite different, though. The lyrics of the originalhad presented the sanitized fantasies of a young man trying to pick up a girl in a city, whereas the later rapversion used bawdy lyrics showing the harsh realities of such a relationship in a big city late at night. Themere fact that 2 Live Crew made a rap version of the original did not prove fair use, but the Court’sconclusion that the rap version made fun of the boy’s unrealistic fantasy in the original did lead to a findingof fair use.EXAMPLEAlice buys a copy the game Elf War on CD-Rom. She makes a single backup copy and gives the copy to hersister. 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. YesANSWER: D. A backup copy is allowed, but it cannot be given to another person, including a familymember. And since she copied the entire game and reduced the market for new copies (now her sister has nofurther 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.
9/25/2018Print canvas163/216Module 43: Review Exercise #4Time now for the fourth of the five review modules. As usual, there is no new information here – thescenario in the module covers many concepts from the recent modules on intellectual property. Rememberalso 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 Smithdescribed in the first exercise, the episode with Neighbor Ned, and the difficulties completing the sale of hisrestaurant 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 athome. Eventually, he stumbled across a terrific formula. He jokingly called it “Morning Blast,” and startedselling 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 ofhis creation. Roger hired an artist to design a logo for the bottles, and the design - an old man with steamshooting out of his ears – has made the drink even more popular. Roger begins to suspect he mighteventually make far more from the drink than he ever did from owning his restaurant.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 216 pages?
Common Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Trial court, State court