If Goldsmith took the picture while working on assignment for a Newsweek, then the rights to the picture would belong to Newsweek. If Warhol used the photo published by Newsweek, then Newsweek would be the copyright holder and the aggrieved party.
If it was never published then how did Warhol get the picture? Did he buy it? If so Warhol would own the rights.
I don’t see how Goldsmith has standing.
Additionally if he didn’t notice the infringement for 40 years, then there’s insufficient evidence of a copyright infringement. And if he did notice it 40 years ago, then he waived the copyright by waiting too long to complain.
If it was never published then how did Warhol get the picture? Did he buy it? If so Warhol would own the rights.
I don’t see how Goldsmith has standing.
Additionally if he didn’t notice the infringement for 40 years, then there’s insufficient evidence of a copyright infringement. And if he did notice it 40 years ago, then he waived the copyright by waiting too long to complain.
The rights were likely retained by the artist unless specifically signed away to Newsweek. (State laws vary on artist’s rights; the state I live in is artist-friendly on copyright issues)
For Newsweek, they’d rather pay a one-time publish fee (say $5,000) than a buyout fee (say, $15,000) on the use of the image. Newsweek might have had a 3 month window of exclusivity, after which the artist could resell the photo.
Assuming that Prince claimed no ownership (unlikely that he would, unless he had commissioned and paid for the session), the artist would have had full ownership.
As for ‘derivative use’ by Warhol, it seems to me a slippery slope if the Justices can’t clearly define what constitutes a violation. And, as you say, the delay in claiming infringement is troubling for the photographer.
It may be that SCOTUS took the case with the intent of broadening the rights of derivative users (ie. meme creators). I guess we’ll find out.
/my 2c, ymmv