Remove Derivative Work Remove Fair Use Remove Licensing
article thumbnail

How to Distinguish Transformative Fair Uses From Infringing Derivative Works?

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Supreme Court agreed to review the Second Circuit’s ruling that Andy Warhol’s series of colorful prints and drawings of Prince were not transformative fair uses of Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph (for a previous comment on this case, see here ). Hence, the Foundation’s use was non-transformative. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Finds Warhol’s Commercial Licensing of “Orange Prince” to Vanity Fair Is Not Fair Use and Infringes Goldsmith’s Famed Rock Photo

Intellectual Property Law Blog

s (AWF), [1] in a long-awaited decision impacting fair use under Section 107(1) of the Copyright Act. Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2] Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2] Goldsmith was not paid or credited for this use.

Fair Use 130
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

How Original! The Oscars and the Craft of Derivative Works

Trademark and Copyright Law Blog

One aspect of copyright law that makes adaptations attractive is derivative works. A derivative work is a work based on one or more existing copyrighted works. Studios will usually work through licensing deals to smooth out the creation of adaptations.

article thumbnail

SCOTUS Rules Andy Warhol’s Prince Portraits Are Not Fair Use

The IP Law Blog

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.

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

Court to Revisit Fair Use in Tattoo Infringement Case

Copyright Lately

Fischer denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, finding triable issues of substantial similarity and fair use. Among other things, the court held that there was a factual dispute as to whether or not defendants’ purpose in using Sedlik’s image of Miles Davis was “commercial.”

article thumbnail

U.S. Supreme Court Vindicates Photographer But Destabilizes Fair Use — Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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).