Posted on 05/18/2023 4:20:29 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan appeared to take umbrage at Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s majority opinion in a copyright case involving Andy Warhol and Prince, telling readers in her dissent that she would trust their “good judgment” rather than counter her colleague’s “fistfuls of comeback footnotes.”
The shot at Kagan’s fellow liberal came in a lengthy second footnote of her dissent, which several Supreme Court observers found “interesting” and “noteworthy.”
Kagan and Chief Justice John Roberts were the only justices that didn’t rule in favor of music photographer Lynn Goldsmith’s claim that the the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts improperly licensed a work by the famous pop artist which used a photograph of the late musician Prince taken by Goldsmith.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Pathetic all around: https://nypost.com/2023/05/18/elena-kagan-sonia-sotomayor-trade-jabs-in-andy-warhol-case/
A dog fight.
‘A dog fight.’
Female dogs at that.
Sounds like a judicial bitchslapping to me
This kind of garbage is why SCOTUS is “too busy” to see 1st and 2nd amendment cases???
They should both just shut up, and go make sandwiches for Justice Thomas.
I’ll buy the mud...
Interesting grouping.
"Yer gonna need a bigger mud puddle..."
Wonder if Warhol would have been in favor of mutilating children’s sex organs?
The country is going to hell, they won’t take important cases but this is what they quibble about? Some stupid copyright case involving a guy who’s been dead for 36 years? Bunch of fools.
They took it because it’s going to be a defining moment for other artists in copyright cases. Sounds superficial unless you’re the artist getting ripped off financially.
Not really. I’m in this line of work, and you folks are reading way too munch into this.
My artist friend was a part of that group in the early 60s, and my favorite feminist shot Andy Warhol.
Some time back, I was obliged to read many Appeals Court and Supreme Court decisions including a variety of US Supreme Court rulings and noted then that over time the decisions became flabbier and flabbier. Dignity disappeared from the very language of the opinions along with brevity and clarity. The decisions began to be overladen with bloated and often slanted expositions on the factual backgrounds of the case.
Glancing over today’s decision in the Warhol case... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf...I find that the quality of writing has deteriorated even further to the level of a lifestyle magazine article.
Could Campbell’s Soup sue the Warhol estate?
The majority opinion finds a way to differentiate the two.
Good Lord - Kagan and Roberts are RETARDS.
So basically - Goldsmith photographed Prince back in 1981 and, back in 1981, Andy Warhol paid her $10k to use the photograph as the basis for a painting to be published, one time, in another magazine.
Almost 40 years later, after Prince died, Conde Nast asked the Warhol foundation to reprint the painting and paid the Warhol foundation for its use. Neither Conde Nast nor AWF consulted Goldsmith for permission to do so.
Kagan AND ROBERTS here claim that the painting was an original work and thus no need to pay Goldsmith anymore.
EXCEPT that’s not what the original contract stated - Warhol paid for a ONE TIME license for ONE publication and Kagan and Roberts basically wave that away because... “art”.
It’s BS and both of these, so-called, judges obviously have no understanding of law and should RESIGN IMMEDIATELY.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.