Posted on 03/29/2022 3:12:57 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The Supreme Court said on Monday that it would review a closely watched copyright infringement lawsuit that pits the Andy Warhol Foundation against the photographer Lynn Goldsmith. The Court’s decision could have major implications for “fair use” of copyrighted materials in art.
Few cases related to contemporary art have ever been heard by the Supreme Court.
In 1984, Warhol used a 1981 photograph that Goldsmith had taken of the pop star Prince as the basis for a series of paintings. Goldsmith’s picture of Prince was shot on assignment for Newsweek. On commission for Vanity Fair, Warhol used the photograph as a reference, allegedly without Goldsmith’s knowledge of the project. She claimed decades later that Warhol had committed copyright infringement by using it.
Related Articles The Andy Warhol Diaries. Cr. Andy Netflix's 'Andy Warhol Diaries' Series Offers Intimate View of an Artist Known for Obfuscation AI-Generated Andy Warhol to Narrate New Netflix Documentary Series The Warhol Foundation’s lawsuit has already been considered a major one. Whatever decision the Supreme Court makes on the suit is likely to prove decisive, as it will clarify what constitutes “fair use” for artists who rely on appropriated ready-made images in their practices, a notoriously sticky artistic strategy that has landed figures like Jeff Koons and Richard Prince in court previously.
“We welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to grant review in this case,” Roman Martinez, a lawyer for the firm Latham’s Supreme Court & Appellate Practice, which is representing the Warhol Foundation, said in a statement. “The ‘fair use’ doctrine plays an essential role in protecting free artistic expression and advancing core First Amendment values.”
The case was initiated in 2017 when the Warhol Foundation preemptively sued Goldsmith in New York with the aim of getting a ruling that the Pop artist had not committed copyright infringement with his “Prince Series.” The Southern District Court of New York ruled in the foundation’s favor in 2019.
But Goldsmith appealed the case and registered a legal win in 2021, when the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said that said that her photograph was the “recognizable foundation” for the “Prince Series” paintings. Basing his decision on the visual qualities of the Warhol paintings, Judge Gerald Lynch said that Warhol may have changed the look of some parts of Goldsmith’s portrait—the color tones, for example—but that he had not done so in a “transformative” way.
By the end of last year, the Warhol Foundation had begun to seek a Supreme Court review of the case.
The news comes amid a period of heightened interest in Warhol. Netflix recently released a documentary series about the artist, titled The Andy Warhol Diaries, and Christie’s revealed plans last week to auction a $200 million portrait of Marilyn Monroe by him that could become one of the most expensive artworks ever sold.
I thought Campbell’s Soup would be suing him.
Why did you think that?
Thank gawd they aren’t wasting time and effort on trivial things,,
,, like,,,,say,,
Election/voter fraud.
Spit.
Really?
Unlikely. You can’t buy advertising like that.
She was never jealous of his success, she just said, that all the kids called him 'sissy"
Personally, I think his "art" is crap, although Campbells soup got a ton of free publicity.
Derivative works are subject to the original copyright. (Just ask Vanilla Ice.)
This will be interesting.
This may be the end of memes.
Do more people actually buy more soup because of Warhol?
He was supposed to be religious.
This is what we’re worried about?
Of all the very important cases they take a pass on and ignore but this is somehow more pressing?
We’re circling the bowl guy’s.
“Really?”
Yes.
I don’t know. But sometimes going after someone with a lawsuit will cause your own PR more damage than just ignoring the arguable copyright violation. IIRC that was the case with Kodak and Paul Simon. They figured that the bad PR from suing Simon would be more damaging than the copyright case. And Simon was saying good things about Kodachrome.
On the other hand waiting 40 years to sue is ridiculous. Copyrights are supposed to be defended as they happen. Else you can lose the copyright.
I have no doubt he was, although I can't remember if he was Slovien or Slovak, just a story from my mother's neighborhood.
My mother also said she would get a dime for starting up a stove from an Orthodox Jewish neighbor family on Friday night.
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.
But SCOTUS doesn’t have time for thousands of election fraud whistle blower witnesses? At least elite owner copyright law will be interpreted.
The same Supreme Court that refused to hear an appeal of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision regarding election law violations? Nice.
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.