Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comAuthor: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC|September 8, 2014
Not only did the Lovelace vs Deep Throat case require an octogenarian U.S. federal judge to sit through over a full hour of pornography, it also served to illustrate some of the finer points of fair use law. I’ll share it with you, but first, we need to discuss what constitutes fair use and why this area of the law is important.
While copyright law is intended to prevent an author’s work from being used without his or her permission, sometimes, it is desirable for us, as a society, to allow a limited degree of copying. Parody is a good example of this type of situation. Collectively, we feel that authors and other media producers should have the right to parody other works, but to do so requires a significant degree of copying. Without fair use laws, this would be impossible.
Officially, there are four factors that judges and juries consider when determining a legitimate example of fair use. The definition is relatively malleable, and only via decision in court can something definitively be considered fair use.
Lovelace vs. Deep Throat
The case that prompted this post is a very reasonable decision by U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa to rule that the film “Lovelace” does not infringe upon the copyright held on “Deep Throat,” a pornographic film. “Lovelace” is a biopic film that depicts the life of Linda Lovelace, the primary actress in the latter film.
Griesa wrote in his decision that the heart of “Deep Throat” is “a pornographic film that in particular, focuses on one type of pornographic act,” while “Lovelace,” though it includes elements from some of the scenes in “Deep Throat,” is a clear case of transformative use. Considering the two films’ obviously different tone, focus and target audience, I am inclined to agree.
As Chairmen of the Sports & Entertainment Practice Group for Scarinci Hollenbeck, I find the subject of fair use and copyright fascinating. If you are like me and interested in this subject, check out some of my previous posts:
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comNot only did the Lovelace vs Deep Throat case require an octogenarian U.S. federal judge to sit through over a full hour of pornography, it also served to illustrate some of the finer points of fair use law. I’ll share it with you, but first, we need to discuss what constitutes fair use and why this area of the law is important.
While copyright law is intended to prevent an author’s work from being used without his or her permission, sometimes, it is desirable for us, as a society, to allow a limited degree of copying. Parody is a good example of this type of situation. Collectively, we feel that authors and other media producers should have the right to parody other works, but to do so requires a significant degree of copying. Without fair use laws, this would be impossible.
Officially, there are four factors that judges and juries consider when determining a legitimate example of fair use. The definition is relatively malleable, and only via decision in court can something definitively be considered fair use.
Lovelace vs. Deep Throat
The case that prompted this post is a very reasonable decision by U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa to rule that the film “Lovelace” does not infringe upon the copyright held on “Deep Throat,” a pornographic film. “Lovelace” is a biopic film that depicts the life of Linda Lovelace, the primary actress in the latter film.
Griesa wrote in his decision that the heart of “Deep Throat” is “a pornographic film that in particular, focuses on one type of pornographic act,” while “Lovelace,” though it includes elements from some of the scenes in “Deep Throat,” is a clear case of transformative use. Considering the two films’ obviously different tone, focus and target audience, I am inclined to agree.
As Chairmen of the Sports & Entertainment Practice Group for Scarinci Hollenbeck, I find the subject of fair use and copyright fascinating. If you are like me and interested in this subject, check out some of my previous posts:
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!