Digital media is a rapidly evolving world. Incredible new technologies emerge every day, helping to solve big problems and make life easier. But, in an industry that is so fluid and evergreen, new and changing legal issues are being brought up every day. Because of the ease of sharing content with these new technologies, one major legal issue in the online world is copyright infringement. There is a power struggle between content publishers and the public, and both sides believe strongly that they are in the right. Lenz v. Universal Music Corp is a case that shows the tension between the two groups, and how the tension can boil over. Stephanie Lenz, a young mother from Pennsylvania, posted a 29-second video of her infant son dancing to Prince’s
…show more content…
Fair use is a critical component to the growth of the Internet and online entertainment. The law says that using a copyrighted work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright,” (17 USC §107). In further deciding whether a work should fall under fair use, the law lays out four criteria for determination: First, the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; second, the nature of the copyrighted work; third, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and fourth, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (Hajek, 2015). While this law is straightforward, content producers want to protect their intellectual property, so there is a constant tug of war in the fair use …show more content…
Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. The 2 Live Crew, a rap group, penned a song called “Pretty Woman,” which was a parody of Roy Orbison’s song “Oh, Pretty Woman” (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose). 2 Live Crew asked Orbison’s manager for a license to parody the song, but Orbison’s representation, Acuff-Rose, refused. 2 Live Crew released its song anyway, and Acuff-Rose sued 2 Live Crew for copyright infringement. The District Court ruled for 2 Live Crew, saying the song was a parody that made fair use of Orbison’s song under Copyright Law § 107. The Appeals Court reversed the decision, stating that through using the “heart” of the original song and turning it into the “heart” of a new song, 2 Live Crew went too far under the third and fourth factors in Copyright Law § 107 (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose). The case went to the Supreme Court, where it ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew and found the song to be fair use within Copyright Law § 107. The Court found that just because a parody can be used for a commercial reason doesn’t mean it can’t also fall under fair use (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose). This was a landmark ruling because the Supreme Court established that many factors of fair use must be used to determine if a work falls under the category, instead of just one or a few. This is relevant to Lenz v. Universal Music Corp because it establishes the precedent that there are many elements that need to be weighed in a fair use case, not just one or two
Fair use is a critical component to the growth of the Internet and online entertainment. The law says that using a copyrighted work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright,” (17 USC §107). In further deciding whether a work should fall under fair use, the law lays out four criteria for determination: First, the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; second, the nature of the copyrighted work; third, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and fourth, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (Hajek, 2015). While this law is straightforward, content producers want to protect their intellectual property, so there is a constant tug of war in the fair use …show more content…
Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. The 2 Live Crew, a rap group, penned a song called “Pretty Woman,” which was a parody of Roy Orbison’s song “Oh, Pretty Woman” (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose). 2 Live Crew asked Orbison’s manager for a license to parody the song, but Orbison’s representation, Acuff-Rose, refused. 2 Live Crew released its song anyway, and Acuff-Rose sued 2 Live Crew for copyright infringement. The District Court ruled for 2 Live Crew, saying the song was a parody that made fair use of Orbison’s song under Copyright Law § 107. The Appeals Court reversed the decision, stating that through using the “heart” of the original song and turning it into the “heart” of a new song, 2 Live Crew went too far under the third and fourth factors in Copyright Law § 107 (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose). The case went to the Supreme Court, where it ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew and found the song to be fair use within Copyright Law § 107. The Court found that just because a parody can be used for a commercial reason doesn’t mean it can’t also fall under fair use (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose). This was a landmark ruling because the Supreme Court established that many factors of fair use must be used to determine if a work falls under the category, instead of just one or a few. This is relevant to Lenz v. Universal Music Corp because it establishes the precedent that there are many elements that need to be weighed in a fair use case, not just one or two