Fair Use

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Fair Use
In the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music case, the U.S. Supreme Court defined the concept of ‘fair use’ as the act of using part of someone else’s original work without necessarily requesting for permission. If it is used for commercial purposes, it must not affect the marketing strategies of the original work. The court went ahead and stated that even if money is made by a work, this does not guarantee that fair use will apply.
There are four elements of fair use that judges consider while making a judgment. The purpose and character of the use is one of them (Findlaw, pt. II par. 3). This element includes but not limited to whether the work is intended for commercial or noncommercial purposes such as educational. Under the same element, the judge will analyze the transformation from the original work. The second element focuses on the nature of the copyrighted material. This element categorizes the original work into various genres. Biographies, for example, are easier to copy without risking infringement of the copyright law than fictional publications such as novels. Still under the same element, it would be better to work with published materials than unpublished materials because the former will have a stronger fair use case.
The amount and substantiality of the portion of work taken; the larger the portion of work copied, the higher the chances of being charged with copyright infringement. However, sometimes the amount doesn’t matter if the copied portion is substantial.

If the most important part of the original work is copied, the action will not be regarded as fair use. This case may not really apply to a parodist as he or she is allowed to use any part of the original work.
The final part focuses on the effects of the copied material on the market of the original piece. The owner of the work reserves the right to take you to court if their potential market is adversely affected by the copied work even if you are not their direct competitor. Similar to the previous element, a parodist receives a different treatment on the same. Instead of the effects on the potential market, the satisfaction of the demands of the original work is taken into consideration in the case of a parody.

Work Cited
Findlaw. “Campbell V. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc..” Findlaw. N.p., 1994. Web. 7 Feb. 2018, www. caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/510/569.html