Opinion ID: 474082
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Purpose and Character of the Defendants' Uses

Text: 21 The first factor listed in section 107 requires us to consider the character of the use and to weigh the commercial or nonprofit purpose of the use. If the work is used for a commercial or profit-making purpose, the use is presumptively unfair. See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 449-451, 104 S.Ct. 774, 792-793, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984). The crux of the profit/nonprofit distinction is not whether the sole motive of the use is monetary gain but whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 2231-32, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985); see also Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 621 F.2d 57, 61 (2d Cir.1980) (The fair use doctrine is not a license for corporate theft, empowering a court to ignore a copyright whenever it determines the underlying work contains material of possible public importance.). 22 The parties disagree about the purpose and character of the use. Falwell contends that he sent the parody to his followers to give them information to rebut the statements it contained, and that the appeal for money was ancillary. Hustler contends, however, that the advertisement was clearly a parody so there was nothing to rebut and thus the letters were purely fundraisers. 23 There is ample evidence that the defendants distributed copies of the parody as an integral part of a financial appeal. All of the letters and television displays involved outright appeals for donations to the Moral Majority to support Falwell's lawsuit against Hustler 5 or to the Old Time Gospel Hour to support his radio and television network. 6 24 Moreover, the chief executive officers of Moral Majority and Old Time Gospel Hour admitted that the parody was copied and sent as part of a market approach to fundraising. Falwell's displaying of the parodies on his television show was also motivated by financial purposes. In addition, the Defendants raised almost one million dollars and therefore clearly profited from their use of the parody without paying any price. Because the Defendants used the parody for a profit-making purpose, their use is presumptively unfair. 25 Even assuming that the use had a purely commercial purpose, the presumption of unfairness can be rebutted by the characteristics of the use. See Triangle Publications, Inc. v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 626 F.2d 1171, 1177 (5th Cir.1980) (comparative advertising); Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. General Signal Corp., 724 F.2d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir.1983) (advertising information), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 100, 83 L.Ed.2d 45 (1984). When the use has both commercial and non-profit characteristics, the court may consider whether the alleged infringing use was primarily for public benefit or for private commercial gain. MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F.2d 180, 182 (2d Cir.1981); see also Meeropol v. Nizer, 560 F.2d 1061, 1069 (2d Cir.1977) ([I]t is relevant whether or not the Rosenberg letters were used primarily for scholarly, historical reasons, or predominantly for commercial exploitation.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1013, 98 S.Ct. 727, 54 L.Ed.2d 756 (1978). 26 In the instant case, Defendants concede that their use was in part to raise money. They contend, however, that they also used the copies to rebut the personal attack upon Falwell and make a political comment about pornography. There was no attempt to palm off the parody as that of the Defendants. In fact, the very opposite is true. Falwell was not selling the parody, but was instead using the parody to make a statement about pornography and Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler. 7 27 Section 107 expressly permits fair use for the purposes of criticism and comment. 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107. Hustler contends, however, that Falwell copied more than was necessary for his response. Hustler points to the fact that Falwell mailed a similar letter of criticism to Moral Majority rank and file members without enclosing a copy of the parody. However, an individual in rebutting a copyrighted work containing derogatory information about himself may copy such parts of the work as are necessary to permit understandable comment. 8 Falwell did not use more than was reasonably necessary to make an understandable comment when he copied the entire parody from the magazine. 9 Therefore, the public interest in allowing an individual to defend himself against such derogatory personal attacks serves to rebut the presumption of unfairness. 28