The IPKat

SEPTEMBER 24, 2021

The Federal High Court dismissed the suit holding that the Respondent/Defendant’s use of the Appellant/Plaintiff’s image was not a violation of her right under the Copyright Act or the tort of passing off. Consequently, the appropriate defendant in this case was either the person directly involved with/in the taking of the photograph (i.e.

Ownership 90

Ownership Artistic Work Contracts Copyright 90

LexBlog IP

FEBRUARY 28, 2022

A few years later, in 1984, Goldsmith’s agency, which had retained the rights to those images, licensed one of them to Vanity Fair for use in an article called “Purple Fame.” Goldsmith counterclaimed for copyright infringement. Vanity Fair , in turn, commissioned Warhol to make a silkscreen using Goldsmith’s photograph.

Fair Use 97

Fair Use Derivative Work Art Licensing 97

LexBlog IP

JUNE 5, 2023

The case began after Prince died in 2016, when Vanity Fair magazine’s parent company, Condé Nast, published a special commemorative magazine celebrating his life. ” The license provided that the use would be for “one time” only. .” Goldsmith counterclaimed for copyright infringement.

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Derivative Work Art Licensing 52

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. Condé Nast paid $400 for the license, which specified “No other usage right granted.”

Fair Use 96

Fair Use Derivative Work Blogging Licensing 96