BROWNE v. McCAIN Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A political campaign used Jackson Browne’s song “Running on Empty” without permission. The court denied the campaign’s motion to dismiss, holding that fact-intensive defenses like fair use and lack of consumer confusion cannot be decided before discovery.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that political speech is not categorically exempt from copyright or Lanham Act liability and that affirmative defenses like fair use are generally unsuitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss due to their fact-intensive nature.
BROWNE v. McCAIN Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Jackson Browne, a musician known for his liberal political affiliations, holds the copyright for his famous song “Running on Empty.” Defendants, including the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Ohio Republican Party (ORP), created and distributed a political advertisement for Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. The ad criticized then-candidate Barack Obama’s energy policy. Without Browne’s authorization, the ad featured a significant portion of Browne’s composition and sound recording of “Running on Empty,” including its instrumental introduction and chorus. The song played over images of Obama with text such as “Not Ready to Lead.” The ad, which aired on television and was posted online, included a small disclaimer identifying the ORP as its source. Browne filed suit, alleging copyright infringement and false endorsement under the Lanham Act, claiming the ad falsely suggested his association with or endorsement of the Republican campaign. The RNC moved to dismiss the claims under FRCP 12(b)(6), arguing its use was protected by the fair use doctrine and the First Amendment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can claims for copyright infringement and false endorsement under the Lanham Act, arising from the unauthorized use of a copyrighted song in a political advertisement, survive a motion to dismiss when the defendant asserts affirmative defenses of fair use and First Amendment protection?
Yes. The court denied the RNC’s motion to dismiss, holding that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in re
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Can claims for copyright infringement and false endorsement under the Lanham Act, arising from the unauthorized use of a copyrighted song in a political advertisement, survive a motion to dismiss when the defendant asserts affirmative defenses of fair use and First Amendment protection?
Conclusion
This decision serves as precedent that intellectual property claims against political campaigns Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad mi
Legal Rule
The affirmative defense of fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded in two parts. First, regarding the copyright infringement Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A court denied the RNC’s motion to dismiss copyright and Lanham