Opinion ID: 218859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Nature of the work and amount copied

Text: Although the court spent little time on the second and third factors of the fair use analysis, it should be noted that they favor Murphy as well. The second factor is the “nature of the work,” with more “creative expression” entitled to more protection than “factual works.” See Campbell, 510 16 Obviously, however, the extent of demand for the work may affect the calculation of damages. 17 As “fair use is an affirmative defense, its proponent would have difficulty carrying the burden of demonstrating fair use without favorable evidence about relevant markets.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 590. The Station Defendants fault Murphy for not providing more evidence about the market for his work, but this misplaces the evidentiary burden. 26 U.S. at 586-87. The Image is more creative expression than factual work. See, e.g., Southco., Inc. v. Kanebridge Corp., 390 F.3d 276, 284 (3d Cir. 2004). The third factor is the amount of the work copied. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586. The Station Defendants copied the Image in its entirety. Thus, both factors weigh in favor of Murphy. In finding in favor of the Station Defendants, the District Court relied heavily on Campbell‟s relative discounting of the weight of the second and third factors in the context of parody. However, Campbell explicitly treated parody as “a difficult case,” because “[w]hen parody takes aim at a particular original work, the parody must be able to „conjure up‟ . . . the original . . . .” 510 U.S. at 588. Thus, copying is not only helpful, but often necessary, in creating a parody, and even extensive copying of creative expression may be fair use in genres which rely for their artistic effect, at least in part, on the evocation of the original. The Station Defendants do not assert that their use of the unaltered Image was a parody. At the very least, the court has not explained how the use by the Station Defendants is of such a nature as to require analysis similar to that of parody. Thus, all four factors here favor Murphy and the District Court erred in finding that the Station Defendants‟ reproduction of the unaltered Image on the WKXW website was a fair use.18 18 Murphy complains that the District Court did not engage in an independent analysis of the posting of the unaltered photograph on myspacetv.com. It does not appear, however—at least from the present record—that the analysis 27