2017 Derivative Work Fair Use 
IPilogue
MAY 26, 2022
Sound recordings are subject to copyright protection under the US Copyright Act of 1976 (Title 17) (“Act”), which also provides that the owner of a sound recording has exclusive rights to reproduce, prepare derivative works from and publicly distribute the work. Moten seems to have anticipated the use of the defence.
The IP Law Blog
MAY 25, 2023
Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Andy Warhol’s portraits of music legend Prince did not qualify as fair use under copyright law. In a 7-2 decision, the high court sided with Goldsmith’s argument that Warhol’s “Orange Prince” constituted an infringing derivative work of her copyrighted photograph.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Kluwer Copyright Blog
SEPTEMBER 1, 2021
Like most copyright systems, French copyright law does not leave much room for the freedom of authors of transformative graphic works (also called “derivative works”). Three interesting cases on derivative works, two involving Jeff Koons and one Tintin, have recently put French copyright law in the international spotlight (e.g.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JUNE 20, 2023
Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s ruling that the reproduction of Andy Warhol’s Orange Prince on the cover of a magazine tribute was not a fair use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photo of the singer-songwriter Prince, on which the Warhol portrait was based. By Guest Blogger Tyler Ochoa By a 7-2 vote, the U.S. Goldsmith , No. 569 (1994).
LexBlog IP
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
1] That decision shook the art world, as it seems to dramatically narrow the scope of the fair use doctrine, and raises doubts about the lawfulness of many existing works. [2] It found that all four fair use factors weighed against fair use. [12] Goldsmith counterclaimed for copyright infringement.
LexBlog IP
MAY 25, 2023
Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Andy Warhol’s portraits of music legend Prince did not qualify as fair use under copyright law. In a 7-2 decision, the high court sided with Goldsmith’s argument that Warhol’s “Orange Prince” constituted an infringing derivative work of her copyrighted photograph.
JIPL Online
MARCH 15, 2021
7] Before the court could decide if the subtitled version, a type of derivative work, could still be protected even if the underlying film on its own was available to be used by all, both parties settled. [8]. 9] Both parties reached an amicable settlement. [10] 11] The case has also been settled. [12] ANALYSIS/PREDICTION.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
111 
Let's personalize your content