Abilene Music, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.
67 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1356, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10366, 320 F.Supp.2d 84 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A transformative parody of a copyrighted work, which comments on or criticizes the original, can constitute fair use under copyright law, even if it uses recognizable elements of the original, provided it does not function as a market substitute for the original.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs own the copyright to the song 'What a Wonderful World,' widely known for its optimistic celebration of nature and life, famously recorded by Louis Armstrong.
- In 2001, hip-hop artist Dennis Coles, known as Ghostface Killah, wrote and recorded a song titled 'The Forest' for his album 'Bulletproof Wallets.'
- 'The Forest' portrays a dark and venal view of the modern world, imagining popular cartoon characters engaged in acts of violence, sex, and theft.
- 'The Forest' opens with an a cappella, off-key rendition of the first three lines of 'What a Wonderful World.'
- Coles altered the original lyrics, inserting slang references to marijuana ('buds that are green, red roses too / I see the blunts for me and you / And I say to myself, what a wonderful world').
- While the melody of 'Wonderful World' is recognizable, the rendition in 'The Forest' intones the final line 'what a wonderful world' on a single note, negating the original's optimistic feeling.
- After this three-line introduction, 'The Forest' does not repeat or reference 'Wonderful World' for the remainder of its duration.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sent a notice of infringement to defendant Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. in November 2001.
- After the parties were unable to resolve the matter, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. and individual defendants (including Dennis Coles, a.k.a. Ghostface Killah) in federal district court, seeking actual or statutory damages, a permanent injunction, destruction of copies, and costs and attorneys' fees.
- The parties stipulated that plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of copyright infringement.
- The individual defendants never appeared in the action.
- Plaintiffs filed a request for a default judgment against defendant Coles in September 2002, which remained unresolved due to plaintiffs' failure to comply with the court's individual procedures.
- Both plaintiffs and defendant Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. moved for summary judgment on the sole unresolved issue of Sony's affirmative defense of fair use.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a rap song's altered, off-key rendition of a copyrighted song's opening lines, used to sarcastically contrast the original's optimistic message with a cynical worldview, a fair use parody?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynch, District Judge
Yes, the rap song's altered rendition constitutes fair use as a parody. The court found 'The Forest' to be a transformative parody of 'What a Wonderful World.' Regarding the first fair use factor (purpose and character of the use), the court determined that 'The Forest' uses the optimistic opening of 'Wonderful World' to create a clear ironic contrast with its own dark depiction of the world, thereby commenting on the original song’s 'unrealistically uplifting message.' The alterations in lyrics (e.g., marijuana references) and musical style (off-key, a cappella, single-note intonation) effectively reinforce this cynical and ironic meaning, making a parodic character reasonably perceivable. The court rejected the argument that 'The Forest' used too little of 'Wonderful World' to be a parody, emphasizing that the parody was an integral part of the song's message. For the second factor (nature of the copyrighted work), while 'Wonderful World' is highly creative, this factor does not heavily weigh against fair use in parody cases because parodies almost always copy publicly known, expressive works. For the third factor (amount and substantiality of the portion used), despite copying the 'heart' of 'Wonderful World' (its opening lines), the court found that 'The Forest' took no more than was necessary to 'conjure up' the original and make its parodic point through alterations, with the three-line quotation never being repeated and every part used being modified. Finally, concerning the fourth factor (effect of the use on the potential market), no reasonable jury could find that 'The Forest' would cause substantial harm to the market for 'Wonderful World' because consumers interested in the original would not purchase the off-key, three-line rendition instead. The court also clarified that 'The Forest' did not transpose 'Wonderful World' into a new genre without parodying it, thus not supplanting a market for non-parody hip-hop versions. In aggregate, the statutory fair use factors weighed heavily in favor of fair use, affirming that disallowing such use would contravene copyright’s purpose of fostering new creative expressions and reactions to existing works.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the Supreme Court's Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. precedent by emphasizing that transformative parody is a strong defense against copyright infringement, even if the parody uses the 'heart' of the original work. It clarifies that a parody doesn't need to extensively quote or continuously reference the original to be effective, as long as the critical commentary is reasonably perceivable. The decision highlights the importance of qualitative analysis over strict quantitative measures in fair use, particularly for works that critically juxtapose disparate cultural messages.
