Introduction
Fisher V. Dees was a case in appellate court pitting Marvin Fisher as the appellant and Rick Dees as the appellee. The determination of this case had serious implications on the fair use of intellectual property as defined by the copyright law in America. This paper ventilates on the on the facts involved in the case, the consideration and holding of the appellate court and the implications of the holding in the music and entertainment industry.
Facts of the Case
The following are the facts that were considered in the determination of the case. The appellee in the case sought permission from the owner of the copyright (Marvin Fisher) to use his song called When Sunny Gets Blue. The intention of Rick Dees whose profession was a disk jockey was to create an inoffensive and comedic version of Marvin Fisher’s song. However, the permission was refuse by the copyright owner. Even though the permission to the song was sought and refused, the appellee went ahead and created a parody from the copyrighted song. The parodied song was captioned When Sonny Sniffs Glue. In the parodied version of the song, Rick Dees used twenty nine seconds from the original song by Marvin Fisher. The parodied version also contained edited lyrics and also made fun of the appellant’s unique vocal range.
Considerations and Decision of the Appellate Judge
In determining this case, the appellate judge considered the doctrines of fairs use under the copyright laws in America. These doctrines place exceptions and the limitations to the exclusive rights that an individual is granted by the copyright laws. The decision of the appellate judge was informed by the subject as evidenced by the contents of the parodied version, the decency of the conduct of Rick Dees, the economic effect that the use of the copyrighted song had, the character and the purpose for which the song was used and the amount of material that was taken from the copyrighted material.
Based on the five elements above, the appellate judge made the decision that the subject of the parody was to make fun on the unique vocal range in the appellant’s original song. With regards to the decency of the conduct of Rick Dees, the appellate judge held that Rick Dees behavior was did not show impropriety because he sought permission prior to using the song and also because parodists are hardly granted the permission. With regards to the impact that the use of the song had, the appellate judge found that the parody did not to amount to unfair economic diminishment. Finally, the appellate judge found that Rick Dees only used the part of the song that was necessary to finishing his parodied version. In this regard, the appellate judge ruled that Rick Dees was protected by the doctrines of fair use under the copyright laws.
Significance of the Decision and the Case
The decision of the appellate judge is of great significance. This is because the decision has been very influential in determining what can be defined as a parody. As such the decision has been referred to in numerous cases that relate to commercial parodies. Additionally, the decision of the appellate judge was important in defining the extent of the doctrines of fair use under the copyright laws. It is important to note that the effect of the case and the decision was not only felt in the legal realms. The case has had a significant effect in the music and entertainment industry.
Among the protections that musicians get from the copyright law is the derivative works based in their music. The case brought the debate on parodies and derivative works into question. Based on Fisher v. Dees, parodies have been are now protected under the doctrines of fair use. This implies that they are not classified as derivatives, and as such do not amount to an infringement of intellectual property rights (Lawyers for the Creative Arts 2). As a result of this ruling, there have been more parodies in the music industry, many of them disguised as social commentaries.
It is arguable that the addition of parodies in the works protected under the doctrines of fair use has influenced the ability of musicians, artists and other players in the music and entertainment industry to fully reap the profits of their creative ability (Nunnenkamp 300). For instance, the parody by Mr. Yankovic on the copyrighted song Beat It by Michael Jackson was very successful, selling over 3 million copies. This raises the issue of whether such parodies are still a ‘fair use’ of copyrighted material (Sanders 11). Although this parody was made before the Fisher v. Dees, it still highlights what is a sensitive area.
Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music was an important case involving parodies that was determined after Fisher v. Dees. Initially, the District Court determined that the parody was protected under the doctrines of fair use, only for the appellate court to reverse and remand the ruling holding that the parody has qualitatively taken a substantial amount from the original song and also caused economic harm to the original song (Legal Information Institute 1). In the absence of Fisher V. Dees, the decision of the District Courts would have remained, granting Campbell benefits from an infringement of copyright laws. However, the decision in Fisher v. Dees informed the decision of the appellate court, thereby reversing the holding of the District Court.
Conclusion
The doctrines of fair use limit the exclusive rights to the owner of a copyright. While this is not entirely bad, it is only fair to acknowledge that Fisher v. Dees has had both negative and positive effects on the music and entertainment industry.
Works cited
Lawyers for the Creative Arts. Legal issues involved in the music industry. Lawyers for the Creative Arts. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Legal Information Institute. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994). Legal Information Institute. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Nunnenkamp, Kenneth. Musical parody: Derivative use or fair use? Loyola of Los Angeles entertainment law review, 7.2 (1987):299-232.
Sanders, Charles & Gordon, Steven. Stranger in parodies: Weird Al and the law of musical satire. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 1.1 (1990):11-48.
Speaker Notes
Facts
The case paper ventilates Fisher v. Dees, a case that touches on copyright laws, and more specifically, the doctrines of “fair use”. The case involved the appellant – Marvin Fisher – and appellee-Rick Dees. The conflict in the case was the use the song – When Sunny gets blue – in parodied version. The appellee had sought permission but was refused by the appellant.
Considerations
In determining this case, the appellate court reviewed five elements as guided by the doctrines of “fair use”. They included the subject as evidenced by the contents of the parodied version, the decency of the conduct of Rick Dees, the economic effect that the use of the copyrighted song had, the character and the purpose for which the song was used and the amount of material that was taken from the copyrighted material.
Findings
The appellate judge held that Rick Dees behavior was did not show impropriety because he sought permission prior to using the song and also because parodists are hardly granted the permission.
The appellate judge also found that the parody did not to amount to unfair economic diminishment.
The appellate judge found that Rick Dees only used the part of the song that was necessary to finishing his parodied version.
Ruling
The appellate judge ruled that Rick Dees was protected by the doctrines of fair use under the copyright laws.
Significance of decision and case
The addition of parodies in the works protected under the doctrines of fair use has influenced the ability of musicians, artists and other players in the music and entertainment industry to fully reap the profits of their creative ability. Although this was before the determination of this case, Mr. Yankovic’s parody of Michael Jackson’s song sold over three million copies. Nonetheless, it has also protected musicians from infringements as seen in Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music.
