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] Vanity Fair , in turn, commissioned Warhol to make a silkscreen using Goldsmith’s photograph. He did just that.
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. Vanity Fairlicensed one of Goldsmith’s Prince photographs to use in a Vanity Fair article.
For years, videographers have used music as a backdrop in their films, short videos, and documentaries. The law around music licensing is pretty clear: a license is required to use copyrighted music in a video. Steve Schlackman. This has been a standard practice since the dawn of music recordings.
adopting that posture of indifference, the majority does something novel (though in law, unlike in art, it is rarely a good thing to be transformative).” The decision has been both decried as an assault on the future of art and hailed as a major vindication for photographers. ’” Take that.
On this reading, there's still no way to have any confidence about how any given fairuse case will be decided." That would have been a big deal in fairuse jurisprudence. There's no support in the Second Circuit opinion for that second reading, so we're back to the first: these Judges saw this particular use differently.
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