In Campbell v. Accuf-Rose Music, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held that commercial use of a parody of the famous Roy Orbison song, "Oh, Pretty Woman", did not, in and of itself, prevent the parody from constituting fair use under 107 of the Copyright Act.

Accuf-Rose Music, Inc. (Accuf-Rose), the owner of the copyright in the original work, had sued Luther R. Campbell and his fellow members of the "rap" music group 2 L*e Crew for copyright infringement after 2 Live Crew produced a rap version of the song entitled "Pretty Woman", which borrowed, among other things, the distinctive opening bass rift from the Roy Orbison classic. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted summary judgment in favor of 2 Live Crew, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the commercial nature of 2 Live Crew's parody precluded it from constituting fair use under the Copyright Act.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Judge Souter, rejected the Sixth Circuit's per se rule that commercial intent is always fatal to the fair use defense. In reversing the Sixth Circuit's decision, the Supreme Court noted that such a rigid standard would unduly narrow the scope of the fair use exception by prohibiting, for example, educational copying undertaken for profit. Instead, the Court emphasized that the four factors set forth in 107 must be weighed in each individual case in light of the purposes of copyright.

The Court concluded that in the present circumstances 2 Live Crew's "Pretty Woman" was "transformative" of the original work, in that it constituted a new and distinct expression which clearly parodied and criticized the Roy Orbison original. The Court further observed that the amount of copying which is permissible in each case necessarily depends on the purpose and character of the alleged fair use. In order to be effective, the Court pointed out, it is usually essential for a parody to appropriate the "heart" of the parodied work, in this case the distinctive opening bass rift of the Roy Orbison version. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the district court for a determination of whether 2 Live Crew's copying of the opening bass rift was "excessive" in light of the parodic purpose of the work and the otherwise "transformative" nature of the parody. Finally, while expressing skepticism, the Court also directed that the district court consider Accuf-Rose's claim that the 2 Live Crew parody would adversely affect the market for the original work by acting as a "substitute" for the Roy Orbison version.