home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1990s
/
Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso
/
time
/
032194
/
03219920.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-05-26
|
4KB
|
85 lines
<text id=94TT0315>
<title>
Mar. 21, 1994: Parodies Regained
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
Mar. 21, 1994 Hard Times For Hillary
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
SUPREME COURT, Page 46
Parodies Regained
</hdr>
<body>
<p>Ruling on a Roy Orbison send-up, Justice Souter alights elegantly
on the side of satire
</p>
<p>By David Van Biema--Reported by Greg Aunapu/Miami, Patrick E. Cole/Los Angeles and
Kristen Lippert-Martin/Washington
</p>
<p> Could it have happened this way? It is dusk at the Supreme
Court chambers. Portraits of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Felix
Frankfurter gaze from the walls. A 54-year-old Justice from
a rural white state cues up the official Supreme Court CD player,
and we hear...Luther Campbell's bawdy, silly rap parody
of the Roy Orbison classic, Oh, Pretty Woman: "Big hairy woman,
you need to shave that stuff/ Big hairy woman, you know I bet
it's tough/ Big hairy woman, all that hair ain't legit/ 'cause
you look like `Cousin It.'" Slowly, almost imperceptibly, Justice
David Souter's foot begins to tap.
</p>
<p> The scene is imaginary, but it captures the spirit of a fascinating
Supreme Court decision last week to affirm the borrowing rights
of parody, an artistic form that has long suffered in copyright
limbo. Normally, artists are entitled to payment for use of
their words, tunes or images. A 1976 law lists some exceptions
to this rule, including scholarship and commentary, whereby
unpaid excerpting (known as "fair use") is allowed. Parody,
however, goes unmentioned. Should send-up artists, whose ranks
have included everyone from Lewis Carroll to "Weird Al" Yankovic,
be included too? More specifically, can Campbell, best known
for his group 2 Live Crew's 1990 victory over obscenity charges,
appropriate Orbison's famous bass intro, his drumbeat and his
first line without permission from the song's publisher?
</p>
<p> Souter, writing for all nine Justices, said yes. Although a
lower court must rule on whether Campbell appropriated too much
or hijacked potential profits from a nonparodic rap version
of the song, Souter held that a careful satirist can borrow
from his victim without permission.
</p>
<p> Souter's opinion is intellectually frisky as well as legally
timely. Parody's legitimacy, he ventures, lies in its "transformative"
character, the same alchemy of turning the known into the new
that informs all art. Campbell deserves credit both for "shedding
light on an earlier work, and...creating a new one." Souter
then makes an excursion into the social roots of humor: part
of the parody's kick, he says, is its explosion of Orbison's
unlikely premise of sidewalk romance, which the judge notes,
"...ignores the ugliness of street life and the debasement
that it signifies." Rebutting the argument that the ditty's
commercial intent moots its artistic value, Souter playfully
enlists Samuel Johnson: "`No man but a blockhead ever wrote,
except for money.'" Finally, the court's Latin scholar scores
head-banger points for using the phrase "opening bass riff"
without quotation marks.
</p>
<p> Satirists welcomed the decision, which should aid not only musical
lampoonists but also those who work in prose, video and the
visual arts. So did rap artists, some of whom, embroiled in
controversies regarding obscenity and violence, worry about
the racial evenhandedness of the American justice system. Says
Courtney Branch, producer of the top-selling acts D.J. Quik
and Mad Flava: "I was skeptical of the Supreme Court at first.
But I would say to Souter that I thank him for being able to
look past the color line to the art and musicians' freedom to
say what they would like to say."
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>