Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Company

623 F.2d 252, 207 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 277, 6 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1457, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16820
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJune 9, 1980
Docket1180, Docket 80-7145
StatusPublished
Cited by69 cases

This text of 623 F.2d 252 (Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Company, 623 F.2d 252, 207 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 277, 6 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1457, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16820 (2d Cir. 1980).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This copyright infringement suit concerns a skit, shown on the television program “Saturday Night Live,” poking fun at New York City’s public relations campaign and its theme song. In the four-minute skit the town fathers of Sodom discuss a plan to improve their city’s image. The satire ends with the singing of “I Love Sodom” to the tune of “I Love New York.” The District Court for the Southern District of New York (Gerard L. Goettel, Judge) rejected appellant’s claim of copyright infringement, concluding that the parody was protected fair use. Believing that, in today’s world of often unrelieved solemnity, copyright law should be hospitable to the humor of parody, and that the District Court correctly applied the doctrine of fair use, we affirm on Judge Goettel’s thorough opinion. 1 482 F.Supp. 741.

1

. The District Court concluded, among other things, that the parody did not make more extensive use of appellant’s song than was necessary to “conjure up” the original. 482 F.Supp. at 747. While we agree with this conclusion, we note that the concept of “conjuring up” an original came into the copyright law not as a limitation on how much of an original may be used, but as a recognition that a parody frequently needs to be more than a fleeting evocation of an original in order to make its humorous point. Columbia Pictures Corp. v. National Broadcasting Co., 137 F.Supp. 348, 354 (S.D.Cal.1955). A parody is entitled at least to “conjure up” the original. Even more extensive use would still be fair use, provided the parody builds upon the original, using the original as a known element of modern culture and contributing something new for humorous effect or commentary.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Devin Copeland v. Justin Bieber
789 F.3d 484 (Fourth Circuit, 2015)
Tufamerica, Inc. v. WB Music Corp.
67 F. Supp. 3d 590 (S.D. New York, 2014)
Jackson v. Odenat
9 F. Supp. 3d 342 (S.D. New York, 2014)
Tufamerica, Inc. v. Diamond
968 F. Supp. 2d 588 (S.D. New York, 2013)
Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
491 F. Supp. 2d 962 (C.D. California, 2007)
Jobete Music Co. v. Johnson Communications, Inc.
285 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (S.D. Ohio, 2003)
Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Company
252 F.3d 1165 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co.
136 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (N.D. Georgia, 2001)
Charles Atlas, Ltd. v. DC Comics, Inc.
112 F. Supp. 2d 330 (S.D. New York, 2000)
Lyons Partnership, L.P. v. Giannoulas
14 F. Supp. 2d 947 (N.D. Texas, 1998)
Annie Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corporation
137 F.3d 109 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.
948 F. Supp. 1214 (S.D. New York, 1996)
Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n
868 F. Supp. 1266 (N.D. Oklahoma, 1994)
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
510 U.S. 569 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Black Dog Tavern Co., Inc. v. Hall
823 F. Supp. 48 (D. Massachusetts, 1993)
Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. v. Campbell
972 F.2d 1429 (Sixth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
623 F.2d 252, 207 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 277, 6 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1457, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elsmere-music-inc-v-national-broadcasting-company-ca2-1980.