NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

Syllabus

No. 92-1292.
Argued November 9, 1993-Decided March 7, 1994

Respondent Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., filed suit against petitioners, the members of the rap music group 2 Live Crew and their record company, claiming that 2 Live Crew's song, ``Pretty Woman,'' infringed Acuff-Rose's copyright in Roy Orbison's rock ballad, ``Oh Pretty Woman.'' The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song. See Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U. S. C. 107. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair under the first of four factors relevant under 107; that, by taking the ``heart'' of the original and making it the ``heart'' of a new work, 2 Live Crew had, qualitatively, taken too much under the third 107 factor; and that market harm for purposes of the fourth 107 factor had been established by a presumption attach- ing to commercial uses.

Held: 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of 107. Pp. 4-25.

(a) Section 107, which provides that ``the fair use of a copy-righted work . . . for purposes such as criticism [or] comment . . .is not an infringement . . . ,'' continues the common-law traditionof fair use adjudication and requires case-by-case analysis ratherthan bright-line rules. The statutory examples of permissible usesprovide only general guidance. The four statutory factors are tobe explored and weighed together in light of copyright's purpose ofpromoting science and the arts. Pp. 4-8.

(b) Parody, like other comment and criticism, may claim fairuse. Under the first of the four 107 factors, ``the purpose andcharacter of the use, including whether such use is of a commer-cial nature . . . ,'' the enquiry focuses on whether the new workmerely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whetherand to what extent it is ``transformative,'' altering the originalwith new expression, meaning, or message. The more transforma-tive the new work, the less will be the significance of other fac-tors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fairuse. The heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existingmaterial is the use of some elements of a prior author's composi-tion to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on thatauthor's work. But that tells courts little about where to draw theline. Thus, like other uses, parody has to work its way throughthe relevant factors. Pp. 8-12.

(c) The Court of Appeals properly assumed that 2 Live Crew'ssong contains parody commenting on and criticizing the originalwork, but erred in giving virtually dispositive weight to the com-mercial nature of that parody by way of a presumption, ostensiblyculled from Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,464 U. S. 417, 451, that ``every commercial use of copyrightedmaterial is presumptively . . . unfair . . . .'' The statute makesclear that a work's commercial nature is only one element of thefirst factor enquiry into its purpose and character, and Sony itselfcalled for no hard evidentiary presumption. The Court of Ap-peals's rule runs counter to Sony and to the long common-lawtradition of fair use adjudication. Pp. 12-16.

(d) The second 107 factor, ``the nature of the copyrightedwork,'' is not much help in resolving this and other parody cases,since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressiveworks, like the Orbison song here. Pp. 16-17.

(e) The Court of Appeals erred in holding that, as a matter oflaw, 2 Live Crew copied excessively from the Orbison originalunder the third 107 factor, which asks whether ``the amount andsubstantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrightedwork as a whole'' are reasonable in relation to the copying'spurpose. Even if 2 Live Crew's copying of the original's first lineof lyrics and characteristic opening bass riff may be said to go tothe original's ``heart,'' that heart is what most readily conjures upthe song for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takesaim. Moreover, 2 Live Crew thereafter departed markedly fromthe Orbison lyrics and produced otherwise distinctive music. As tothe lyrics, the copying was not excessive in relation to the song'sparodic purpose. As to the music, this Court expresses no opinionwhether repetition of the bass riff is excessive copying, but re-mands to permit evaluation of the amount taken, in light of thesong's parodic purpose and character, its transformative elements,and considerations of the potential for market substitution. Pp. 17-20.

(f) The Court of Appeals erred in resolving the fourth 107factor, ``the effect of the use upon the potential market for or valueof the copyrighted work,'' by presuming, in reliance on Sony,supra, at 451, the likelihood of significant market harm based on2 Live Crew's use for commercial gain. No ``presumption'' orinference of market harm that might find support in Sony isapplicable to a case involving something beyond mere duplicationfor commercial purposes. The cognizable harm is market substitu-tion, not any harm from criticism. As to parody pure and simple,it is unlikely that the work will act as a substitute for the origi-nal, since the two works usually serve different market functions. The fourth factor requires courts also to consider the potentialmarket for derivative works. See, e. g., Harper & Row, supra, at568. If the later work has cognizable substitution effects inprotectable markets for derivative works, the law will look beyondthe criticism to the work's other elements. 2 Live Crew's songcomprises not only parody but also rap music. The absence ofevidence or affidavits addressing the effect of 2 Live Crew's songon the derivative market for a nonparody, rap version of ``Oh,Pretty Woman'' disentitled 2 Live Crew, as the proponent of theaffirmative defense of fair use, to summary judgment. Pp. 20-25.972 F. 2d 1429, reversed and remanded.

Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Kenne-dy, J., filed a concurring opinion.