Re: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose

> But arguably if something is found to be a marketplace substitute or not
> only goes to the question of how relevant market impact is in determining
> fair use. If something is a substitute that doesn't mean it is or is not
> a fair use (parody). If it is a marketplace substitute that merely means
> market impact on the underlying copyrighted work must be considered under
> the fair use doctrine analysis. In contrast, if it is not a marketplace
> substitute the affect on the market for the underlying copyrighted work
> is irrelevant in the fair use analysis.

I hear you, but it still doesn't resolve in my mind the question of whether and how the "new" parody analysis leaves someone free to satirize a work by taking its characters and plots and putting them into some absurd new set of conditions, if any parody could affect the marketplace for derivative works based on the original. My original example was Sherlock Holmes. The last of the originally published story collections dates from the late 1920s, and is presumably still in copyright.

Vance R. Koven
attorney at law
Boston, MA
<koven[_at_]umbsky.cc.umb.edu> Received on Sun Mar 27 1994 - 03:27:01 GMT