Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Syllabus 

educational purposes,” §107(1), considers the reasons for, and nature 
of, the copier’s use of an original work.  The central question it asks is 
whether the use “merely supersedes the objects of the original creation 
. . . (supplanting the original), or instead adds something new, with a
further purpose or different character.”  Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 
Inc., 510 U. S. 569, 579 (internal quotation marks and citations omit-
ted).  As most copying has some further purpose and many secondary 
works add something new, the first factor asks “whether and to what 
extent” the use at issue has a purpose or character different from the 
original.  Ibid. (emphasis added).  The larger the difference, the more
likely the first factor weighs in favor of fair use.  A use that has a fur-
ther purpose or different character is said to be “transformative,” but 
that too is a matter of degree.  Ibid.  To preserve the copyright owner’s 
right to prepare derivative works, defined in §101 of the Copyright Act 
to include “any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed,
or  adapted,”  the  degree  of  transformation  required  to  make  “trans-
formative”  use  of  an  original  work  must  go  beyond  that  required  to 
qualify as a derivative. 

The Court’s decision in Campbell is instructive.  In holding that par-
ody may be fair use, the Court explained that “parody has an obvious 
claim to transformative value” because “it can provide social benefit, 
by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating a 
new one.”  510 U. S., at 579.  The use at issue was 2 Live Crew’s copy-
ing of Roy Orbison’s song, “Oh, Pretty Woman,” to create a rap deriva-
tive, “Pretty Woman.”  2 Live Crew transformed Orbison’s song by add-
ing new lyrics and musical elements, such that “Pretty Woman” had a
different message and aesthetic than “Oh, Pretty Woman.”  But that 
did not end the Court’s analysis of the first fair use factor.  The Court 
found it necessary to determine whether 2 Live Crew’s transformation
rose  to  the  level  of  parody,  a  distinct  purpose  of  commenting  on  the
original or criticizing it.  Further distinguishing between parody and 
satire, the Court explained that “[p]arody needs to mimic an original
to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its vic-
tim’s (or collective victims’) imagination, whereas satire can stand on 
its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrow-
ing.”  Id., at 580–581.  More generally, when “commentary has no crit-
ical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, . . . 
the claim to fairness in borrowing from another’s work diminishes ac-
cordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its 
commerciality, loom larger.”  Id., at 580. 

Campbell illustrates two important points.  First, the fact that a use 
is commercial as opposed to nonprofit is an additional element of the 
first fair use factor.  The commercial nature of a use is relevant, but 
not dispositive.  It is to be weighed against the degree to which the use