| Abstract: | The 1994 US Supreme Court decision in Luther Campbell et al. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., written by Justice David Souter, reversed a lower court decision and argued in favor of the rap group 2 Live Crew's playful critique of Roy Orbison's ‘Oh Pretty Woman’ by its function as parody. This essay seeks to contextualize that decision by showing the roots of 2 Live Crew's recording in the practice of ‘covering’ – the re-recording of an existent popular composition – and thus the possibilities for redefining authorship that arose with the advent of digital technology. The compositional techniques allowed by computer programs led to the proliferation of sampling in the hip-hop community, thereby liberating sounds from the original content and reconfiguring them in new songs. The technique allowed a critical, and in some cases adversarial, stance to be taken towards long-standing Western definitions of authorship and ownership. 2 Live Crew added to this rich stew of possibilities the familiar and time-tested genre of parody. Their piece took what one judge referred to as the ‘white bread original’ of the Roy Orbison record and twisted about the implicit point of view with regard to gender and sexuality. Discussion of the legal complications that followed upon the suing of the group by the holder of the copyright in the Orbison song, Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., includes the apparently sanctioned use of the song in the Disney-produced film Pretty Woman as well as the use of other Orbison material in director David Lynch's Blue Velvet. The essay concludes with suggestions as to how the language of Justice Souter's decision allows not only for future parodies but also a reinvigoration of speech, one which calls into question power relationships codified in US copyright statutes. |
