This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
1] That decision shook the art world, as it seems to dramatically narrow the scope of the fairuse doctrine, and raises doubts about the lawfulness of many existing works. [2] Goldsmith counterclaimed for copyright infringement. It found that all four fairuse factors weighed against fairuse. [12]
Warhol’s use of Prince’s photo (taken by Lynn Goldsmith) was not entitled to fairuse. The Court found that Goldsmith’s earlier photo and Andy Warhol’s use served the same commercial purpose – as a magazine illustration. I am not so sure. Take a look a the illustration above.
Supreme Court recently granted a petition for writ of certiorari (docket, here ) to review the extent to which a work of art is a “transformative” fairuse under the Copyright Act. Goldsmith counterclaimed for copyright infringement.
"Whether they quite meant to or not, their ruling had the effect of declaring that the landmark inventions of Duchamp and Warhol — the 'appropriation' they practiced, to use the term of art — were not worthy of the legal protection that other creativity is given under copyrightlaw."
The Second Circuit stands by its Warhol-Goldsmith fairuse decision , even after Google v. The issue here does not pit novel forms of art against philistine censorship, but rather involves a conflict between artists each seeking to profit from his or her own creative efforts. The amended decision is here.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content