If others aren't aware, the somewhat formal sounding "Campbell v. Acuff-Rose" regards the legality of 2 Live Crew's cover of Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman". The

If others aren't aware, the somewhat formal sounding "Campbell v. Acuff-Rose" regards the legality of 2 Live Crew's cover of Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman". The Supreme Court held that it was clearly a parody, and thus clearly fair use. Equally clearly, seeing as the Supreme Court was reversing the earlier decision of the Appeals Court, it wasn't actually that clear to some. In any case, it's also a delightful listen to a more innocent era in rap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMqnPVU207M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMqnPVU207M. That said, I'd also be interested in an answer to heavyset_go's question. I think the answer is "no", and that it's only a case of "parody" being a positive example of transformation rather than "satire" being a negative. The decision in this case, for example, doesn't actually even mention the term "satire", and instead relies on the (not particularly well defended) opinion that setting Star Trek in the world of Go! might be transformative for Captain Kirk, but it is "not transformative" to Go!.