Re: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose

If, as Prof. Beckerman-Rodau suggests, the substitution argument applies to parodies that compete with derivative works the original author was entitled to make, doesn't that swallow up the entire field, since an author is always at liberty to make fun of himself?

I'm sure we can all think of authors who have become self-parodies.

But more to the point, if Acuff-Rose stands for the proposition that the original author can prevent third-party continuation novels, as Prof. Terrell says, then what are we supposed to do with all the Sherlock Holmes riposffs, including, one might surmise, ones that camp onto a plot without using copyrighted characters' names?

Vance R. Koven
<koven[_at_]umbsky.cc.umb.edu> Received on Wed Mar 23 1994 - 03:18:50 GMT