Copyright Lately

MAY 22, 2023

In a 7-2 decision , the Court ruled that the commercial licensing of Andy Warhol’s “Orange Prince” to Condé Nast to illustrate a story about the late musician shared “substantially the same purpose” as the original Lynn Goldsmith photo from which Warhol’s silkscreen was derived, and therefore weighed against fair use. Goldsmith.

Fair Use 92

Fair Use Licensing Copying Artwork 92

Kluwer Copyright Blog

MAY 9, 2022

Vanity Fair decided to publish an article about the rock singer Prince in a 1984 magazine. Vanity Fair contacted Lynn Goldsmith’s licensing agency in search of a photograph of that performer to serve as an artist reference. Besides, Goldsmith had chosen not to license that photograph to others.

Fair Use 122

Fair Use Derivative Work Art Licensing 122

LexBlog IP

MAY 22, 2023

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. ” Goldsmith’s photograph was then licensed to Vanity Fair in 1984 for $400 as a “one time” “artist reference for an illustration.”

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Art Derivative Work Copyright Infringement 52

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 4, 2023

Fair uses tend to divide into buckets: justified by new work; justified by project. New work: Derivative work or embedding work: Cambpell v. Use is justified by context of being placed in new work. If the project is fine, it’s fine to repeat the project with additional works.

Fair Use 59

Fair Use Derivative Work Copying Marketing 59

LexBlog IP

JUNE 7, 2023

Warhol created these silkscreens from a photograph of Prince taken by Lynn Goldsmith, who claimed copyright infringement when the Warhol estate licensed Orange Prince to Conde Nast after Prince’s passing in 2016 to illustrate an article about Prince’s life and music. ” Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. ” Id.

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Licensing Art Music 52

Copyright Lately

AUGUST 14, 2023

Kat Von D’s Motion In its previous ruling on the parties’ motions for summary judgment , the court found triable issues of fact with respect to both the first fair use factor (purpose and character of the use) and the fourth (effect of the use upon the potential market).

Fair Use 88

Fair Use Social Media Licensing Marketing 88

LexBlog IP

MAY 19, 2023

In 1984, Goldsmith licensed the copyrighted photograph for $400—for publication “one time”—to Vanity Fair, who hired Andy Warhol to make a purple silk screen image based on the photograph, which Vanity Fair published in an article about Prince. of a commercial nature. .” of a commercial nature.

Fair Use 40

Fair Use Derivative Work Licensing Copyright Infringement 40

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.” That factor asks “whether, if the challenged use becomes widespread, it will adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.” [20]

Fair Use 97

Fair Use Derivative Work Art Licensing 97

IP Intelligence

JUNE 6, 2023

Warhol created these silkscreens from a photograph of Prince taken by Lynn Goldsmith, who claimed copyright infringement when the Warhol estate licensed Orange Prince to Conde Nast after Prince’s passing in 2016 to illustrate an article about Prince’s life and music. at 1289 (Gorsuch, concurring) (emphasis added). at 1290 (Gorsuch, J.,

Fair Use 40

Fair Use Licensing Art Music 40

LexBlog IP

JULY 7, 2023

Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ holding that the Andy Warhol Foundation’s licensing of Warhol’s Orange Prince , a print based on a photograph of the late musician by defendant Lynn Goldsmith, did not constitute fair use of the Goldsmith photograph. [3] 2] A week later, the U.S. 3] Graham v. .

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Art Licensing Copyright Infringement 52

Intellectual Property Law Blog

JUNE 5, 2023

2] The Court’s decision affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the Warhol work was derivative of the original, and noted that “the new expression may be relevant to whether a copying use has a sufficiently distinct purpose or character” but that factor was not dispositive by itself. [3]

Fair Use 130

Fair Use Licensing Cease and Desist Derivative Work 130

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. By Guest Blogger Tyler Ochoa By a 7-2 vote, the U.S.

Fair Use 96

Fair Use Derivative Work Blogging Licensing 96

43(B)log

AUGUST 9, 2024

seems like this is going to have trouble with derivative works] Amanda Levendowski, Fairer Public Benefit Bias and harms of works aren’t taken into account in fair use analysis: recruits a legal tool typically aimed at one set of problems for the purpose of cleverly addressing a different set of problems. Whyte Monkee v.

Fair Use 59

Fair Use Marketing Marketing Licensing 59

Kluwer Copyright Blog

AUGUST 7, 2023

In 1984, Condé Nast, the publisher, obtained a license from Goldsmith to allow Andy Warhol to use her Prince portrait as the foundation for a single serigraphy to be featured in Vanity Fair magazine. In 2016, Condé Nast acquired a license from the Warhol Foundation to use the Prince Series as illustrations for a new magazine.

Copyright 52

Copyright Derivative Work Fair Use Copyright Law 52

LexBlog IP

JUNE 5, 2023

2] The Court’s decision affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the Warhol work was derivative of the original, and noted that “the new expression may be relevant to whether a copying use has a sufficiently distinct purpose or character” but that factor was not dispositive by itself. [3]

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Licensing Cease and Desist Derivative Work 52

LexBlog IP

MAY 26, 2023

2] The Court’s decision affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the Warhol work was derivative of the original, and noted that “the new expression may be relevant to whether a copying use has a sufficiently distinct purpose or character” but that factor was not dispositive by itself. [3]

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Licensing Cease and Desist Derivative Work 52

Kluwer Copyright Blog

JULY 16, 2023

In the EU, a crucial legal issue is whether using in-copyright works to train generative AI models is copyright infringement or falls under existing text and data mining (TDM) exceptions in the Copyright in Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive. ” 3) How to Distinguish Transformative Fair Uses From Infringing Derivative Works?

Blogging 52

Blogging Law IP Fair Use 52

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 2, 2024

Goldsmith SCOTUS understood the “use” to be the foundation’s commercial licensing. But licensing is neither a © use nor an act of infringement. Licensing is not found in 106. Sotomayor says, 8 times, that the use at issue is commercial licensing. A license is a grant of permission to use, not a use in itself.

Fair Use 49

Fair Use Derivative Work Licensing Marketing 49

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 16, 2024

Achieve a purpose that is the same as or highly similar to the original work=more likely to substitute for or supplant the original work. Magazine photos about Prince” is the market in which they compete. The market is full of highly differentiated products, aesthetically. Why did licensing get elevated?

Derivative Work 59

Derivative Work Fair Use Art Marketing 59

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

FEBRUARY 13, 2023

Fifth, assuming Trump owns a valid copyright, did he grant an implied license to Woodward to publish transcripts of the interviews and/or the record­ings themselves? The bottom line: even if he gets past the implied license problem, Trump still has to survive several other substantive and procedural hurdles to recovery.

Copyright 121

Copyright Blogging Publishing Fair Use 121

The IP Law Blog

FEBRUARY 23, 2023

Trump contends that Woodward did not request to expand the scope of a release or furnish a release to use the interview sound recordings for an audiobook or any other derivative work, as is customary in the book publishing and recording industries. So there’s no stories coming out, okay. In the 1981 case of Falwell v.

Copyright 98

Copyright Copyright Infringement Publishing Derivative Work 98

LexBlog IP

FEBRUARY 23, 2023

Trump contends that Woodward did not request to expand the scope of a release or furnish a release to use the interview sound recordings for an audiobook or any other derivative work, as is customary in the book publishing and recording industries. So there’s no stories coming out, okay. In the 1981 case of Falwell v.

Copyright 52

Copyright Copyright Infringement Publishing Derivative Work 52