On 3/19/98, David Post <postd[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what happened in this case (the 2 Live Crew 'parody'
> case) after remand to the district court from the supreme court? the
> parties, I assume, settled -- is that right? Any public info on the
> terms?
Making use of the excellent archives of this list, I found the following:
> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 97 07:23:02 PST
> From: Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
> Subject: Re: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose
> To: cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org
> Message-Id: <Chameleon.970313072806.bstock[_at_]bstock.ucla.edu>
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I'm teaching this case in my copyright class this week. Does
> > anyone know what happened on remand after the Supreme Court
> > decision? Did the case settle?
>
> There are several similar newspaper stories all published on June 5,
> 1996. I found three with Lexis. Here is part of one:
>
> "Acuff-Rose Music settled a copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday
> it had filed against the rap group 2 Live Crew over the rappers'
> parody of the rock classic Oh, Pretty Woman.
>
> Under terms of the settlement, Acuff-Rose said it dismissed its
> lawsuit against the group while 2 Live Crew agreed to license the
> sale of their version of the Roy Orbison classic.
>
> 'That means we will be getting paid for the song,' said Acuff-Rose
> spokesman Mike Hyland.
>
> Jerry Flowers, vice president of Acuff-Rose's parent company,
> Opryland Music Group, said 'the cost of further litigation
> outweighed the potential benefits of victory.'"
>
> Acuff-Rose Settles Suit with Rap Group, THE COMMERCIAL APPEAL
> (Memphis), June 5, 1996.
>
-----end of archived message-------------
http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1997-01/0879.html
That, of course, does not give you all of the terms of the settlement.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:29 GMT