Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 23

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 

For example, this Court in Campbell considered whether 
parody may be fair use.  In holding that it may, the Court 
explained that “parody has an obvious claim to transform-
ative value” because “it can provide social benefit, by shed-
ding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating 
a new one.”  510 U. S., at 579.  The use at issue in Campbell
was 2 Live Crew’s copying of certain lyrics and musical ele-
ments from Roy Orbison’s song, “Oh, Pretty Woman,” to cre-
ate  a  rap  derivative  titled  “Pretty  Woman.”   Without  a 
doubt, 2 Live Crew transformed Orbison’s song by adding 
new lyrics and musical elements, such that “Pretty Woman”
had a new message and different aesthetic than “Oh, Pretty
Woman.”  Indeed, the whole genre of music changed from
rock ballad to rap.  That was not enough for the first factor
to weigh in favor of fair use, however.  The Court found it 
necessary  to  determine  whether  2  Live  Crew’s  transfor-
mation of Orbison’s song rose to the level of parody, a dis-
tinct purpose of commenting on the original or criticizing it.
See id., at 580–583. 

Distinguishing between parody (which targets an author 
or work for humor or ridicule) and satire (which ridicules
society but does not necessarily target an author or work),
the Court further explained that “[p]arody needs to mimic 
an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use 
the creation of its victim’s (or collective victims’) imagina-
tion, whereas satire can stand on  its own two feet and so 
requires justification for the very act of borrowing.”  Id., at 
580–581.  More generally, when “commentary has no criti-

—————— 
2000)  (newspaper’s  reproduction,  without  alteration,  of  photograph  of 
beauty  pageant  winner  to  explain  controversy  over  whether  her  title 
should be withdrawn had transformative purpose because “ ‘the pictures 
were the story’ ”), with Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F. 3d 
109, 114–115 (CA2 1998) (film advertisement’s alteration of well-known 
photograph  by  superimposing  actor’s  face  on  actress’  body  had  trans-
formative purpose of parody).