Parody qualifies as fair use because it requires conjuring the original to comment on it

US copyright fair use doctrine (codified in 17 U.S.C. § 107) allows unlicensed use of copyrighted material when the use transforms the original, especially for parody or commentary. The Supreme Court ruled in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose (1994, the 2 Live Crew case) that parody can be fair use even when commercial, because parody necessarily borrows enough of the original to make the connection legible. Key test: does the secondary work ‘conjure up’ the original to comment on it, or merely use it for a different creative purpose? Collage and sampling that comment on the source may qualify; uses that just exploit the source commercially face stronger infringement claims. A common misconception: that brevity of the sample automatically confers fair use — length is one of four factors, not determinative alone.

Examples

2 Live Crew’s parody of Roy Orbison’s ‘Pretty Woman’ — ruled fair use. Mad magazine’s lyric parodies of Irving Berlin — fair use upheld. Jeff Koons’s ‘String of Puppies’ sculpture copying a photograph — fair use rejected (no commentary on the photo itself).

Assessment

Given a hypothetical sampling scenario, identify which of the four fair-use factors favor or disfavor fair use, and explain why Negativland’s U2 single is a harder case than the 2 Live Crew parody.