Remove Art Remove Derivative Work Remove Fair Use Remove Licensing
article thumbnail

How to Distinguish Transformative Fair Uses From Infringing Derivative Works?

Kluwer Copyright Blog

“Warhol Print” (Vanity Fair), Page 8, Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. 2021) (available here ); “Warhol Print” also available here “Goldsmith Photograph”, Page 7, Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. Hence, the Foundation’s use was non-transformative. Goldsmith, 11 F.4th 4th 26 (2d Cir.

article thumbnail

Clarifying Copyright Fair Use in Commercialized and Licensed Visual Arts: Insights from Warhol v. Goldsmith

LexBlog IP

Clarifying Copyright Fair Use in Commercialized and Licensed Visual Arts: Insights from Warhol v. Goldsmith by Jaime Chandra Clarifying Fair Use in Commercialized & Licensed Visual Arts: Insights from the Warhol v. We’re talking about Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

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

LexBlog IP

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. Warhol created the print that was used in the 1984 Prince article in Vanity Fair , for which Goldsmith received her modest sum and artistic credit.

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.

article thumbnail

Let’s Go Hazy: Making Sense of Fair Use After Warhol

Copyright Lately

Five things to know about the Supreme Court’s new purpose-driven fair use opinion in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (“ Warhol “) is that relatively rare fair use case in which both the original and follow-on works were more or less directly competing in the same market.

article thumbnail

WIPIP: In Memoriam and Fair Use

43(B)log

A Few Words for a Lost Friend: Tribute to Dmitry Karshtedt (Bob Brauneis, Mark Lemley, Jake Sherkow) Closing Plenary Session: Fair use Robert Brauneis, Copyright Transactions in the Shadow of Fair Use Suppose a work does not infringe another work because and only because it’s been ruled a fair use.

article thumbnail

Prince, Prince, Prints: Will the Supreme Court Revisit Fair Use?

LexBlog IP

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] Originals” [7] : The Works at Issue. Vanity Fair , in turn, commissioned Warhol to make a silkscreen using Goldsmith’s photograph.