Remove 2017 Remove Artwork Remove Derivative Work
article thumbnail

SCOTUS Rules Andy Warhol’s Prince Portraits Are Not Fair Use

The IP Law Blog

The decision affirms a previous ruling by the Second Circuit, which found that Warhol’s artwork shared the same commercial purpose as the original photograph taken by photographer Lynn Goldsmith. The Andy Warhol Foundation contended that the artworks were transformative and gave new meaning to Goldsmith’s photo.

article thumbnail

SCOTUS Rules Andy Warhol’s Prince Portraits Are Not Fair Use

LexBlog IP

The decision affirms a previous ruling by the Second Circuit, which found that Warhol’s artwork shared the same commercial purpose as the original photograph taken by photographer Lynn Goldsmith. The Andy Warhol Foundation contended that the artworks were transformative and gave new meaning to Goldsmith’s photo.

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

AI Generated Art and its conflict with IPR

IIPRD

This article delves into the ongoing debate around the issue of right of ownership of copyright by AI generators for their novel artwork. 2] This shift i.e. from assisting work to generating it has taken the legal regime of IPR by a storm of confusion and questions.

Art 52
article thumbnail

The Parody Exception: Revisiting the Case for a Distinct Pastiche Exception

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Articulating these three as distinct exceptions has its advantages, as evidenced in Emily Hudson’s 2017 article , which posits that delineating pastiche as a separate exception could infuse greater flexibility into the EU copyright system, akin to the concept of transformative use in U.S. The same holds true for parody and caricature.

article thumbnail

U.S. Supreme Court Fixes Ninth Circuit’s Test for Mistakes in Copyright Registrations—Unicolors v. H&M (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Unicolors’s business model is to create artwork, copyright it, print the artwork on fabric, and market the designed fabrics to garment manufacturers.” (Readers who are already familiar with the facts of the case and the advantages of registration may skip to “Fraud on the Copyright Office” below.). Factual and Procedural Background.

article thumbnail

Fair Use: Graham v. Prince and Warhol v. Goldsmith

LexBlog IP

8] Second, as to the works’ purpose, the court found that it was unclear whether Prince intended to create a parody of the original photographs, a satire of society’s use of social media, or neither, pointing out Prince’s own contradictory testimony on the question. [9] Many derivative works. 3] Graham v.