Posted on 05/21/2023 5:11:40 AM PDT by tired&retired
Andy Warhol's estate lost its U.S. Supreme Court copyright fight with celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith on Thursday as the justices faulted the famed pop artist's use of her photo of Prince in a silkscreen series depicting the charismatic rock star.
The 7-2 ruling, authored by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, upheld a lower court's decision that Warhol's works based on Goldsmith's 1981 photo were not immune from her copyright infringement lawsuit. But the ruling focused on the licensing of only one of Warhol's Prince images and did not deem the entire silkscreen series a copyright violation.
The film, publishing and recording industries welcomed the ruling. The case was watched closely in the art world and entertainment industry for its implications regarding the legal doctrine called fair use, which promotes freedom of expression by allowing the use of copyright-protected works under certain circumstances without the owner's permission.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
These two court decisions could transform the "Fair Use" laws relating to internet posting and publishing.
Here are links to the two court opinions.
Copy of lawsuit filed against Internet Archives
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6935704/4388-1.pdf
Court Opinion and Order
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900.188.0.pdf
CONCLUSION: The Court has considered all of the parties' arguments. To the extent not specifically addressed above, the arguments are either moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted and the defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied. The parties should submit their respective proposals (or preferably a joint proposal) for the appropriate procedure to determine the judgment to be entered in this case.
"U.S. District Court Judge John G. Koeltl agreed with the plaintiffs, saying that the Internet Archive was making “derivative” works by turning print books into e-books and distributing them. It no longer has the right to do so."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Warhol had purchased the copyright from a magazine who published the original photo. Ends up, they did not own the copyright.
Before you look up “dimmery judgment “ it is a typo. It was to say “Summary Judgment. “
🤭
Dan! Thought I was gonna learn a new term!🤣
“dimmery judgment” is much more appropriate given the current state of the US judiciary.
[[Warhol had purchased the copyright from a magazine who published the original photo. Ends up, they did not own the copyright]]
Kind of akin to someone purchasing a stolen care with a title that wasn’t theirs.
The majority ruled that the magazine might well have chosen Goldstein’s work itself for the same purpose and that is the ONLY reason Warhol’s work amounted to copyright infringement.
I have certain problems with copyright law, chiefly in the outrageous lengths of copyright. But this seems absolutely central to the very purpose of copyright. Had Warhol not used Goldstein’s work without compensation, Goldstein’s own work might have been used for the same purpose. This is not copyright stifling creativity!
Thank you. Now I understand the legaleeze.
It’s a bit more complex than that.
Warhol substantially altered the picture, Conde Nast had published the picture in their magazine, so Fair Use applies, and Conde Nast then sold copyright use to Warhol.
This could have ramifications on the Fair Use statutes that allows us to post articles here on FR.
One of the unexpected blessings might be hindrance of AI, which opened a can of copyright issues itself. That’s until AI wipes us off the map of course!
05/18/2023 4:21:35 PM PDT · by DallasBiff · 21 replies
WSJ ^ | 5/16/23 | Jess Bravin
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4154258/posts
Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor trade jabs in Andy Warhol copyright case
05/18/2023 4:20:29 PM PDT · by BenLurkin · 31 replies
NY Post ^ | 05/18/2023 | Victor Nava
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4154257/posts
Are you the posting police?
I’m about ready to put FR in the catagory of Fox News.
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.