Talk:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Intellectual property (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Intellectual property, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Intellectual propertyWikipedia:WikiProject Intellectual propertyTemplate:WikiProject Intellectual propertyIntellectual property articles

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 7, 2004.

Page Organization

Besides the lead, the article has one, long block of page labeled 'history'. In order to make more coherent structure, it should be broken down into subtopics like 'Background', 'Supreme Court Ruling', 'Precedents', etc. --Tateharsh (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eventual outcome

What was the eventual outcome after the case was remanded? Tempshill 18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They settled. Terry Carroll 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the nature of the settlement still secret? Has anybody close to the action made a comment yet? 216.99.198.72 (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Merger

Please procedd with merging these two pages. Design 13:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically questionable

At the top, the sentence "That money is made does not make it impossible for a use to be fair; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis." appears. The first part of the sentence (before the semicolon) appears to be grammatically ambiguous, and I can't even figure out what it's trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.89.214 (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer a comma after "made"? If you added a comma, it would read: That money is made, does not make it impossible for a use to be fair[.] The only difficulty here is the first four words being a dependent clause, and this serves as a subject to the verb does. The word order, if that is your complaint, is not so unusual that you, a native speaker of English, would never have seen it before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.198.72 (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]