Acuff-Rose's counsel argues 2 Live Crew's borrowing is not fair use
Acuff-Rose MusicRespondent music publisher, through counsel Sidney S. Rosdeitcher
Acuff-Rose's counsel argues that 2 Live Crew's use is not fair use because of how much music it took and sold.
“Now, in that circumstance, I believe that the -- that it is not a fair use.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose: 2 Live Crew claims fair use; the publisher alleges infringement
Acuff-Rose Music sued over 2 Live Crew's Pretty Woman, which used elements of Oh, Pretty Woman, written by Roy Orbison and William Dees. At the Supreme Court's November 9, 1993, argument, counsel disputed whether the parody's commercial use and borrowing from the original defeated fair use. On March 7, 1994, the Court unanimously reversed the Sixth Circuit and remanded. Justice David Souter's opinion rejected a presumption against commercial parody and required the statutory factors to be considered together. It did not finally decide every question about the musical borrowing or potential market substitution.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
Counsel argue the fair-use treatment of the commercial parody. Counsel's advocacy is distinguished from the Court's later holding.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Rosdeitcher argues that the amount borrowed, its musical display and the marketing show the group was selling the original music.
After the quotation
He argues the recording could compete with a rap version the copyright holder might make.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to the parody's unlicensed borrowing, counsel explicitly argues that the use is not fair and exploits the original music commercially.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseKennedy joins the remand while warning against a blanket parody defense
“As future courts apply our fair use analysis, they must take care to ensure that not just any commercial takeoff is rationalized post hoc as a parody.”Read statement
2 Live Crew's counsel argues that parody should be fair absent market displacement
2 Live Crew
“The rule that we suggest is that parody is a fair use unless it materially impairs the market for the original, and material impairment of the market for the original means supplant the original.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Acuff-Rose's counsel argues 2 Live Crew's borrowing is not fair use
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/7478-acuff-rose-s-counsel-argues-that-2-live
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Acuff-Rose's counsel argues 2 Live Crew's borrowing is not fair use". First published: 2026-10-31. Last updated: 2026-10-31. https://disputeindex.com/events/7478-acuff-rose-s-counsel-argues-that-2-live