User:Radeonhead/sandbox

Fisher v. Dees
Court	UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Full case name	MARVIN FISHER d/b/a MARVIN MUSIC COMPANY and JACK SEGAL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RICK DEES, ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, WARNER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendants-Appellees
Decided	July 10, 1986
Defendant	Rick Dees
Prosecution	Marvin Fisher
Citation	794 F.2d 432
Case history
Prior actions	District court grants summary judgement which disposes Fisher and Segals claim of federal claim for copyright infringement and their state-law claims for unfair competition, defamation, and product disparagement.
Subsequent actions	Distinguised in Henley v. Devore
Court membership
Judges sitting	John Clifford Wallace, Joseph Tyree Sneed III, and Alex Kozinski
Keywords
copyright infringement, defamation, disparagement, economic effect, fair use, original work , original , parody, permission, substantiality, unfair competition

History and Impact

In 1984, Rick Dees, a disc jockey, seeks use of Marvin Fisher’s “When Sunny Gets Blue,” with the intention of creating a “comedic and inoffensive” version of the song. This request is ignored by Dees’ with the release of his album “Put it where the Moon Don’t Shine.” One of the songs on the album is entitled “When Sunny Sniffs Glue.” It samples from the very recognizable main theme, along with altering the lyrics of the song, with the parody in question using 29 seconds of the song. Fisher and his affiliated parties file a complaint on the grounds of unfair competition, defamation, and copyright infringement. The court held that the fair use doctrine protected Rick Dees because of the lack of detrimental economic impact and the editorial nature of the song.

According to an unrestricted Shepherd's summary, this case has been cited 91 times , with the majority of the cases dealing with commercial parodies, but a large plurality are also cited within the realm of government works. Fisher v. Dees has had a large effect on defining what constitutes a parody and bounding the concept of “fair use.”

Fair Use Analysis and State Law Claims

In availing the protection of the fair use doctrine to Dees, the court examines five areas: The subject of the parody, The propriety of Dees’s conduct, The purpose and character of the use, the economic effect of the use, and the amount and substantiality of the taking.

First, the court holds that this parody poked fun at the composers vocal style and the lyrics in Dees’s version. Second, in examining the nature of Dees’s conduct after being refused permission to use the song and going forward anyway--the court holds-- is not sufficiently blameworthy for two reasons. First, it is rare for a parodist to actually receive permission and second, to make this action blameworthy would be to penalize showing of consideration in giving the composer notification. Third, the court finds that the commercial nature of parodies is not necessarily damning to the editorial nature of the song, if the defendant can show that there is not unfair economic diminishment. Fifth, the court makes the distinction between criticism that might harm the value because of its poignant nature and copyright infringement which steals market demand. “When Sunny Sniffs Glue,” is a song that is vastly different from the romantic nature of when “When Sunny Gets Blue,” and would be highly unlikely to fulfill the demand of someone looking to buy a song for that reason. Therefore, the parody is much more inline with the former biting criticism. Finally, the court acknowledges a tension that exists between making the consumer of the parody realize that it is a parody of the original work and respecting the rights of the original owner. Dees is held to have only taken the requisite amount as to reasonably accomplish the task of parody. In the question of unfair competition, the court hold that a plaintiff can bring this charge when “passing off occurs,” namely the public is lead to believe that the plaintiffs product is actually the defendants. This question is left open as being redressable --possibly-- by federal law, but not by the statutes advanced by the composers.

In the question of defamation, the court holds that defamation can even occur within parodies if the original work becomes associated with “obscene, indecent, and offensive words,” which did not occur in this case.