meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
COURTSIDE with Neal Katyal

Courtside Episode 9 with Aaron Dessner

COURTSIDE with Neal Katyal

Neal Katyal

Politics, News, Society & Culture

4.9614 Ratings

🗓️ 16 August 2023

⏱️ 33 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit nealkatyal.substack.com

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc. is an important 1994 Supreme Court decision that profoundly impacted copyright law. In a unanimous decision, the Court found that parody is, by and large, protected under the fair use exception, meaning that it doesn’t violate copyright. In the case, 2 Live Crew, a rap group, parodied Roy Orbison and William Dees’ song “Oh, Pretty Woman.” The Court said that was OK. In the long run, the decision has eliminated barriers that previously prevented artists from incorporating unoriginal works into their own, thereby promoting creative growth and the expansion of the arts.

We have the ideal guest to discuss the case, Aaron Dessner. Aaron is part of what I think is the best band in America, the National. He's also the most sought after music writer today, having co written several records with Taylor Swift, including the hauntingly beautiful Folklore and Evermore. He just did the same with Ed Sheeran’s new record Subtract. The idea for this episode arose one night after one of Aaron’s concerts, where he and I got talking about music and copyright and how AI, Artificial Intelligence, was going to upend things.

So here’s what happened. In 1964, the singer-songwriters Roy Orbison and William Dees wrote a song entitled “Oh, Pretty Woman.” After completion, they assigned the rights of the song to a music company called Acuff-Rose Music, which soon had it registered for copyright protection.

25 years later, popular rap music group 2 Live Crew wrote a parody of the song, which they called “Pretty Woman.”

The parody began with the original lyrics and harmonies, but it quickly changed gears, replacing the wishful and melancholy words and chords with startlingly brash ones. 2 Live Crew wrote to Acuff-Rose and asked for permission to release their parody. Acuff-Rose denied the request, but the group went ahead and released the song anyway.

About one year later, Acuff-Rose sued 2 Live Crew for copyright infringement. The District Court ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew, but the Court of Appeals reversed. 2 Live Crew appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. At issue was a simple question, but one that had the potential to radically transform copyright law: Did 2 Live Crew’s parody qualify as fair use under the Copyright Act of 1976?  The Court unanimously said it did.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music was a very consequential ruling. Aside from allowing 2 Live Crew to continue selling their parody of “Oh, Pretty Woman,” the decision also promoted artistic growth, pushing the boundaries of what could acceptably be imitated from preexisting works. Indeed, by recognizing that parody meets the threshold for fair use, the Court opened countless doors for aspiring artists, ensuring that they can draw upon, alter, and otherwise criticize previous works.

But that is not to say that the decision gives artists a blank check. As Justice Kennedy remarked in a brief concurrence, “The parody must target the original, and not just its general style, the genre of art to which it belongs, or society as a whole.” In other words, parody qualifies under the fair use exception so long as it criticizes the original work (and not some broader societal phenomenon). The decision thus respects the key tenets of copyright law and protects the works of parodists, striking a delicate yet thoughtful balance between two competing interests.

Aaron and I get into a discussion of modern copyright problems, including the Ed Sheeran case and the ways in which Artificial Intelligence might upend things.

Paid subscribers have access to all sorts of information about the case, including a short summary of it, an abridged version of the decision, and the full decision. There will also be a remarkable bonus episode with more from Aaron Dessner for paid subscribers in the days to come.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

If you studied Dylan, there's many examples where, like, in theory, he heard something,

0:08.3

and then he took it and, like, you know, transformed it and made it his own, but it's like,

0:13.0

there are lines that can be drawn to what he was actually facing something on.

0:17.3

And I do think that there's very much a tradition of that and that I fully agree

0:23.9

with Justice Story's viewpoint because everything does have a precedent. You can basically

0:30.2

trace all of popular music to all sorts of precedents. And I don't really think that we should be

0:37.3

taking such a litigious

0:40.1

view of people's work all the time as today. It's very common for people to be sued for

0:46.7

copyright infringement. And I think it's too aggressive. Hi, I'm Neil Katyal, and welcome to Courtside, a podcast about the Supreme Court and what it means to you.

0:59.4

I've argued 50 cases at the Supreme Court and served as the federal government's top courtroom lawyer.

1:05.6

But I want the court to come alive for you.

1:08.8

Each week, I discuss a single Supreme Court case with one guest,

1:13.4

someone who's not a lawyer and who can translate the case into plain English. Today, we're going to

1:19.1

learn about a really important music and copyright case called Campbell v. Aquaferro's music

1:25.0

from the year 1994, and we have a terrific guest to discuss it,

1:29.5

Aaron Desner.

1:30.5

Aaron is part of what I think is the best band in America, the National.

1:35.1

His brother Bryce is a brilliant guitarist and classical musician.

1:39.5

The lead singer, Matt Berninger, has vocals to die for, and every member of the band is just so talented,

1:46.5

brilliant, and kind. The idea for this episode arose one night after one of their concerts,

1:52.2

where Aaron and I got talking about music and copyright and how artificial intelligence was

1:57.5

going to upend things. We're going to talk about all of that and get into the details of the Ackif Rose case.

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Neal Katyal, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Neal Katyal and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2025.