CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854

LMFAO Can’t Use Parody Defense

LMFAO
Can’t use parody defense
In copyright case

A Florida federal court judge has ruled that the musical group LMFAO can’t invoke the fair use “parody defense” in a copyright case brought by rapper Rick Ross.

LMFAO claimed that its popular song “Party Rock Anthem,” with the chorus “everyday I’m shuffling,” was a parody of Ross’s song “Hustlin” and its tagline “every day I’m hustlin’.”

The LMFAO song sold more than 7.5 million copies in the US alone and was on the top of the Billboard charts for six weeks in 2013.

Ross’s own song was a hit in 2006.

Ross sued LMFAO’s members in December of 2013. He also sued Kia Motors, which used “Party Rock Anthem” in TV commercials featuring giant dancing hamsters.

The judge wrote,

At best, Party Rock Anthem uses Hustlin’ in a humorous way, but in the absence of any directed criticism, comment, or ridicule, this (slight) element of humor is insufficient to support a parody defense.

She was harshly critical of LMFAO for appropriating Ross’s lyric:

It appears that Party Rock Anthem merely uses Hustlin’ ‘to get attention’ or to ‘avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh,’ Defendants’ assertion of parody is an unconvincing post-hoc rationalization.

The “fresh” quote comes from the US Supreme Court case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., also known as the “Pretty Woman” case.

In that case, the rap group 2 Live Crew used the Roy Orbison song “Oh, Pretty Woman” as the basis for their own song “Pretty Woman.”

The Supreme Court defined “parody” as a work of authorship that uses:

some elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author’s works. The key factor in assessing whether a derivative work is a parody is deciding if it is transformative, if it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message….”

(Citations omitted.)

Although their parody defense failed, the LMFAO members can still contend that their use of Ross’s lyric should be permitted on other grounds – such that the phrase was too short to be subject to copyright protection.

The case is Roberts et al. v. Gordy et al.

Related Articles

Buying Rival’s Trademark as Keyword Search Doesn’t Violate Lanham Act

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant in a case in which the plaintiff law firm claimed ...
Read More

What does copyright law have to do with McDonalds ice cream machines?

The US Copyright Office has granted a copyright exemption giving restaurants the right to repair broken equipment by bypassing locks intended to prevent anyone other ...
Read More

What’s Happening with AI and Copyright Law

Not surprisingly, a lot is happening at the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) law. Here’s a roundup of some recent developments ...
Read More

Let's work together.

Contact us to set up a meeting with an attorney or team member.

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.

SECTORS

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design

call us  206.533.3854