body: Both the original (Roy Orbison) version and the Two Live Crew version began, ["Pretty woman walking down the street..."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.) Was this seen as copying under the "five word" plagiarism rule?
  
  
  According to the Supreme Court, the Two Live Crew version veered sharply away from the original, to the point of being "opposite." That is, the original celebrated a white woman, while the Two Live Crew version mocked a black woman. Was this what made it was parody, and after the appeals court decision was overturned, could therefore possibly make it fair use?
  
  
  In the end, there was a settlement, under which Acuff-Rose, the owner of the original, received no damages, but did receive licensing fees. Two Live Crew had earlier sought (and been refused) such a licensing arrangement, meaning that it got to its starting point. Apparently this was an equitable result given the hazards of further litigation. But was it possible that Two Live Crew could have performed its version "for free" if the appeals court had later found that "parody" made it fair use?
  
  
  
title: Explanation of the key elements of the Supreme Court "Pretty Woman" Parody Case?