Remove 2016 Remove Fair Use Remove Licensing
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Finds Warhol’s Commercial Licensing of “Orange Prince” to Vanity Fair Is Not Fair Use and Infringes Goldsmith’s Famed Rock Photo

Intellectual Property Law Blog

s (AWF), [1] in a long-awaited decision impacting fair use under Section 107(1) of the Copyright Act. Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2] Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2] Goldsmith was not paid or credited for this use.

Fair Use 130
article thumbnail

Fourth Circuit Issues a Bummer Fair Use Ruling–Philpot v. IJR

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

In 2016, the defendant IJR published an article/listicle titled “15 Signs Your Daddy Was a Conservative.” In 2013, Philpot uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons, which is governed by the standard Creative Commons license requiring attribution. IJR argued that Philpot provided free licenses to the work. ” Market Effect.

Fair Use 105
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

How to Distinguish Transformative Fair Uses From Infringing Derivative Works?

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Supreme Court agreed to review the Second Circuit’s ruling that Andy Warhol’s series of colorful prints and drawings of Prince were not transformative fair uses of Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph (for a previous comment on this case, see here ). Hence, the Foundation’s use was non-transformative. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

article thumbnail

3 Count: Tuesday the Fifth

Plagiarism Today

Copyright termination is a process through which creators that licensed their works can reclaim their rights after a set period of time. back in 2016. Ratajkowski fired back, claiming that the photo didn’t qualify for copyright protection and that her use was a fair use. Cunningham.

Fair Use 214
article thumbnail

Court to Revisit Fair Use in Tattoo Infringement Case

Copyright Lately

Fischer denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, finding triable issues of substantial similarity and fair use. Among other things, the court held that there was a factual dispute as to whether or not defendants’ purpose in using Sedlik’s image of Miles Davis was “commercial.”

article thumbnail

Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith: The Supreme Court Revisits Transformative Fair Uses

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Orbison song could be fair use because it transformed the original song by adding something new, with a different purpose, or a new meaning or message. have grappled with how broadly or narrowly to interpret the concept of transformativeness when assessing fair use defenses to charges of copyright infringement.

article thumbnail

Let’s Go Hazy: Making Sense of Fair Use After Warhol

Copyright Lately

Five things to know about the Supreme Court’s new purpose-driven fair use opinion in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (“ Warhol “) is that relatively rare fair use case in which both the original and follow-on works were more or less directly competing in the same market. Andy Warhol Foundation v.