Transformative qualities are an essential aspect of deciding the applicability of fair use when borrowing from copyrighted works. Transformative equates to works that step beyond the replication of a copyrighted work. This can be accomplished by changing the purpose and adding artistic value to the new creation. Through the incorporation of a new purpose and character, consideration of the minimal portion used of the copyrighted work, and inspection of the lack of effect on the market for the original work, it is conclusive that Kanye West’s “Champion” falls under the protection of fair use when taking into account its incorporation of Steely Dan’s “Kid Charlemagne.” West uses a different form of expression as a catalyst for a new creation in the music industry.
“Champion” can be deemed as protected under fair use because of its genre and general background. These qualities contribute to the first test of fair use, which is whether or not the purpose and character of a new work vary from that of a copyrighted work (Crews). Steely Dan’s song falls under the genre of pop and is centered on the talent of a drug manufacturer that is the best in town. These qualities are particularly centered with parts of the song, such as “On the hill the stuff was laced with kerosene / But yours was kitchen-clean / Everyone stopped to stare at your technicolor motor home” (10-12). Meanwhile, Kanye West’s song falls under the genre of hip-hop and deals primarily with West’s relationship with his father and the image that he had of his parental figure. These features are exemplified when West expresses “And I don't know what he did for dough/ But he'd send me back to school with a new wardrobe” (23-24). The purpose of Dan’s work is to recount the talents of a drug maker, while West seeks to express and share his familial experiences. The meaning of the songs is completely different as they share different insights in two completely different realms of society. The ideas used by West may draw from Dan’s work, but the expression is not similar in the slightest.
Another aspect that also contributes to the first part of the fair use four-factor test, is the contrast of the use of the copyrighted line that West borrows from Dan’s work. West’s work incorporates the line from Steely Dan’s song that expresses “Did you realize / That you were a champion in their eyes?” (8-9). The character of these lyrics is distinctly different in West’s song. For West, this phrase defines the idealized image he sees when he reflects on his feelings about his father. Although his father was not a present figure in his life, West notes that his father’s efforts to provide for West’s living needs made his father a “champion” in his eyes. Meanwhile, Dan’s song utilizes the phrase as a means of reflection on the talents of the town’s drug manufacturer. Dan characterizes the manufacturer as being almost God-like. The manufacturer is a “champion” in the eyes of the consumers of his products. The purpose of the line incorporated in West’s song is completely different from that of Dan’s making his use of the copyrighted work a transformative one.
Similarly, another aspect to consider in terms of the transformative qualities of West’s work is the structural musical composition in comparison to Dan’s song. Dan’s work consists of verses with the inclusions of two choruses. West’s piece incorporates an interchange of the Steely Dan refrain, verses, hook, and bridge. When listening to “Kid Charlemagne,” the beats consist of hints of funk and rock, while “Champion” contains traces of electronic music and hip-hop beats in combination with synthesized vocals. There is new meaning embedded at a structural and musical level. New value is added to Steely Dan’s work as West’s song creates a different aesthetic and reflects on a different aspect of the human experience.
“Champion” is protected under fair use because it takes two line’s worth of Steely Dan’s “Kid Charlemagne.” Under the third factor of fair use guidelines, taking less means that there is a greater probability that the work will be excused when borrowing from another copyrighted piece (Stim). The repetition of “Did you realize / That you were a champion in their eyes?” is included in “Champion” exactly seven times. When analyzing the substantiality of the portion taken, it is notable that not a significant portion is taken from the copyrighted work. Instead, West takes a small portion that is repeated multiple times and uses such portion as the background for his creation. Not only does West not draw extensively from Dan’s work, but he also adds a different value and meaning to the small portion he does include in his work.
Opponents of sampling and other forms of creative expression that draw from copyrighted works often defy the line that determines how much is “too much.” Fair use is at times restrictive when the portion of a work taken happens to be the “heart” of the copyrighted work, or the most remarkable aspect of it (Stim). This argument, however, would prove to be invalid when considering the inclusion of Steely Dan’s piece in “Champion.” Although “Did you realize / That you were a champion in their eyes?” is a catchy and memorable part of Dan’s song, it is only two lines worth of his entire piece which is forty-four lines in total. Instead, the most remarkable aspect of “Kid Charlemagne” is the chorus, which expresses “Get along / Get along Kid Charlemagne / Get along Kid Charlemagne” (20-22). In West’s song, the repeating phrase taken from Dan’s piece plays an integral part of the work, as the synthesized lyrics practically merge with the background music. It is notable that Kanye West incorporates more of this phrase than Steely Dan does in his original work. This inclusion on West’s part, however, does not take away from the insignificant portion taken from Dan’s work.
The last factor which protects Kanye West’s “Champion” is the lack of effect of the use on the potential market. Under this aspect of the fair use test, whether or not the new work infringes on the earnings or potential market for the original copyrighted work is considered (Stim). This however, is not applicable when considering West’s work. As previously mentioned, the work of West and Dan is significantly different as to create musical variations that prevent this particular form of fair use controversy. When imagining a Steely Dan fan, several features can be pinpointed. Primarily, a Dan fan would be inclined to listen to the variations of funk pop and rock songs that characterize this artist’s style. Furthermore, even within the genre of funk pop and rock, Steely Dan’s music is distinctive. Dan’s style would be difficult to fully recreate. In stark contrast, stands West’s music. Fully equipped with synthesized vocals, hip-hop beats, occasional hints of funk, and electronic rhythms, West’s fans could distinguish his work in the midst of thousands of hip-hop songs. Being that the type of work produced by West and Dan is significantly different, it is notable that it is not probable that West’s music would infringe on Dan’s work.
Individuals that disagree with sampling practices may argue that the subjectivism of whether the new work is better than the original work may be cause for infringement concerns. This, however, is also an invalid concern. When rationalizing why the improvement of a copyrighted work is not a reason to discard fair-use, considering the last point of the four-factor fair use test is the most useful. Just because a work has improved the artistic value of another work, this does not necessarily mean that it infringes on the market for the copyrighted work. Going back to the Steely Dan and Kanye West fan example, a Steely Dan fan may listen to “Champion” and consider that, aesthetically, more value has been added in comparison to “Kid Charlemagne.” “Champion,” nonetheless, is transformative enough that it continues to hold its worth in the market of hip-hop music, while Steely Dan fans continue to listen or purchase his original song.
The transformative nature, incorporation of a brief line of Dan’s work, and the lack of infringement on the market of “Kid Charlemagne” all contribute to the protection under fair use of West’s “Champion.” Kanye West’s work is representative of a musical creation that draws from a small fragment of another work, yet is unique and creative enough to stand on its own. Stemming from the former transformative point of the four-factor fair use test, it corresponds that West’s work would not infringe on the market of Steely Dan’s work. Fair use serves as a means of protecting and promoting the progress of unique creations. Without fair use, artists like Kanye West would be inhibited from building upon the creative creations of others and adding value to the realm of art.