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

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 246
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

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
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

Understanding Copyright, Trademark and Halloween Costumes

Plagiarism Today

Wtf is a juice demon pic.twitter.com/OxYMWEuoCq — Eli Matthewson (@EliMatthewson) October 1, 2016. If the costume isn’t licensed, why is it not infringing regardless of the name change? In short, Juice Demon is Juice Demon because he can’t be Beetlejuice, not without a license. Why did the company do this?

Trademark 279
article thumbnail

Prince Pop Art Not a Fair Use: SCOTUS Rules Against Warhol

JD Supra Law

The Supreme Court ruled on May 18 that Andy Warhol’s “Orange Prince” work of pop art was not a fair use when licensed to Condé Nast in 2016. Dawn Jackson is a co-author of this post and is a Summer Associate at Bradley. By: Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Holds Warhol’s “Orange Prince” Not Transformative, Not Fair Use

IP Tech Blog

The Supreme Court recently upheld an appellate court’s ruling that Andy Warhol’s use of a photograph of Prince as a reference for a collection of screen prints is not fair use – to the extent his foundation decided to license them at least. Goldsmith, Andy Warhol not only used Ms. Goldsmith et al, Case No.