Fisher v. Dees’s Empirical Analysis
794 F.2d 432 · 1986
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2022 · most notably Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994), Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co. (1995)
33 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 107 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises · Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc · Douglas v. Alabama · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. · Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 107 . The Court must “balance these factors in light of the objectives of copyright law, rather than view them as definitive or determinative tests.” See Kelly, 336 F.3d at 818.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In assessing the economic effect of the parody, the parody’s critical impact must be excluded. Through its critical function, a “parody may quite legitimately aim at garroting the original, destroying it commercially as well as artistically.” B. Kaplan, An Unhurried View of Copyright 69 (1967). Copyright law is not designed to stifle critics_ Accordingly, the economic effect of a parody with which we are concerned is not its potential to destroy or diminish the market for the original — any bad review can have that effect — but rather whether it fulfills the demand for the original. Biting criticism suppresses demand; copyright infringement usurps it. Thus, infringement occurs when a parody supplants the original in markets the original is aimed at, or in which the original is or has reasonable potential to become, commercially valuable. [Citations omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““When Sunny Get Blue” is a “lyrical song concerning or relating to a woman’s feelings about lost love and her chance for ... happiness again.” By contrast, the parody is a 29-second recording concerning a woman who sniffs glue, which “ends with noise and laughter mixed into the song.” We do not believe that consumers desirous of hearing a romantic and nostalgic ballad such the composers’ song would be satisfied to purchase the parody instead. Nor are those fond of parody likely to consider “When Sunny Gets Blue” a source of satisfaction. The two works do not fulfill the same demand.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.