Supreme Court Rules That Andy Warhol Violated a Photographer’s Copyright; Smithsonian Magazine, May 24, 2023

Christopher Parker, Smithsonian Magazine; Supreme Court Rules That Andy Warhol Violated a Photographer’s Copyright

"Reactions to the Supreme Court ruling are mixed. Noah Feldman, a scholar of law at Harvard, writes in Bloomberg that the decision helps artists but harms creativity. 

“The upshot is that little-guy artists win, because they now have more rights than they had before to claim credit for works reused by others,” he writes. “But art as a whole loses, because the decision restricts how artists generate creativity by sampling and remixing existing works.”

Carroll tells the Times that the ruling leaves a lot of room for conflicting interpretations, and the legal battle has only just begun.

“Is it really just about competitive licensing use, or is it more broadly about creating derivative works?” he adds. “I think what you’ll see is lower courts reading it each way, and then eventually this issue is going to find its way back to the Supreme Court.”"

Canvas is half-blank for artists after Warhol's Supreme Court copyright loss; The Denver Gazette, May 20, 2023

John Moore, The Denver Gazette ; Canvas is half-blank for artists after Warhol's Supreme Court copyright loss 

"That’s why, Sink believes, “I don’t think this is going to open any floodgates of artistic repression,” he said. “I feel like that this case falls into its own category because it was a work-for-hire situation.”

The Andy Warhol Foundation issued a statement saying it was important to note that the ruling “did not question the legality of Andy Warhol's creation of the Prince series."

The case is, to put it mildly, “a very complicated, double-edge sword for artists,” Sink said. But two things he’s sure of: 1. “It really is the Wild West out there now” when it comes to these quickly evolving issues. And 2. Warhol (who died in 1987) would be loooooving this."

After the Warhol Decision, Another Major Copyright Case Looms; The New York Times, May 22, 2023

Matt Stevens, The New York Times; After the Warhol Decision, Another Major Copyright Case Looms

"Many thought the latest Supreme Court decision might more clearly delineate what qualifies a work as transformative. But the justices chose instead to focus on how the Warhol portrait had been used, namely to illustrate an article about the musician. The court found that such a use was not distinct enough from the “purpose and character” of Goldsmith’s photo, which had been licensed to Vanity Fair years earlier to help illustrate an article about Prince.

“It was the licensing use, not the creative use, that was at issue,” said Michael W. Carroll, a professor at American University Washington College of Law."

Supreme Court sides against Andy Warhol Foundation in copyright infringement case; NPR, May 18, 2023

 Chloe Veltman, NPR; Supreme Court sides against Andy Warhol Foundation in copyright infringement case

"Soler added the Supreme Court's ruling is likely to have a big impact on cases involving the "sampling" of existing artworks in the future. 

"This supreme court case opens up the floodgates for many copyright infringement lawsuits against many artists," said Soler. "The analysis is going to come down to whether or not it's transformative in nature. Does the new work have a different purpose?"

Wu disagrees about the ruling's importance. "It's a narrow opinion focused primarily on very famous artists and their use of other people's work," Wu said. "I don't think it's a broad reaching opinion.""

U.S. Supreme Court Opinion: ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR THE VISUAL ARTS, INC. v. GOLDSMITH ET AL.; May 18, 2023

U.S. Supreme Court Opinion: ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR THE VISUAL ARTS, INC. v. GOLDSMITH ET AL.

"Held: The “purpose and character” of AWF’s use of Goldsmith’s photograph in commercially licensing Orange Prince to Condé Nast does not favor AWF’s fair use defense to copyright infringement. Pp. 12–38."

Andy Warhol’s Iconic Prince Silkscreens Violated Copyright Rules, Supreme Court Says; Forbes, May 18, 2023

Molly Bohannon, Forbes ; Andy Warhol’s Iconic Prince Silkscreens Violated Copyright Rules, Supreme Court Says

"KEY FACTS

Photographer Lynn Goldsmith alleged copyright infringement, after the Andy Warhol Foundation granted Vanity Fair a license to use one of the pop artist’s Prince silkscreens in 2016, decades after the images were first created using her photograph.

The court rejected arguments made by the Andy Warhol Foundation that the artist didn’t violate copyright laws because he sufficiently transformed Goldsmith’s original shot.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that Goldsmith’s “original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists.”

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, argued that the court’s decision against Warhol “will stifle creativity of every sort” and “will impede new art and music and literature.”"

Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol’s Prince Art is Copyright Infringement; PetaPixel, May 18, 2023

 JARON SCHNEIDER, PetaPixel; Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol’s Prince Art is Copyright Infringement

"Breaking Down the Ruling

Both the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) and the ASMP are celebrating the ruling as a win for photographers. 

“The importance here cannot be overstated,” Thomas Maddrey, Chief Legal Officer and Head of National Content and Education at ASMP, says.

“The last case that the US Supreme Court fully opined on transformation and fair use was more than 25 years ago in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. Here, the Court has added much needed guidance to when a use is truly ‘fair’ and when it is an impermissible usurpation of the rights of the copyright holder.”

Maddrey says that the case will likely have wide-ranging implications in not only the arts community, but also across all intellectual property areas. 

“Copyright practitioners have long sought clarification on what “transformation” actually means in the context of a fair use analysis.”

'The court has clearly identified the boundaries of what constitutes transformation in the context of fair use analysis.""

In Historic Decision, Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol’s Images of Prince Violated Photographer’s Copyright; Variety, May 18, 2023

 Jem Aswad, Variety; In Historic Decision, Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol’s Images of Prince Violated Photographer’s Copyright

"In a ruling that could have vast implications in the copyright world, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that images of Prince created by Andy Warhol that were based on photos taken by Lynn Goldsmith violated her copyright, according to CNN and multiple news outlets.

The ruling was 7-2.

The court rejected arguments made by the late Warhol’s foundation that the work was sufficiently transformative and did not violate copyright laws. While the work was created in the 1980s, Thursday’s ruling arrives against the backdrop of AI, which has created vast copyright implications over what constitutes originality. Warhol freely coopted many photographs, logos and other forms of artwork — ranging from soap boxes to iconic photos — into his works."

Supreme Court Rules Against Andy Warhol in Copyright Case; The New York Times, May 18, 2023

Adam Liptak, The New York Times ; Supreme Court Rules Against Andy Warhol in Copyright Case

"The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Andy Warhol was not entitled to draw on a prominent photographer’s portrait of Prince for an image of the musician that his estate licensed to a magazine, limiting the scope of the fair-use defense to copyright infringement in the realm of visual art.

The vote was 7 to 2. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, said the photographer’s “original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists.”"

Explainer: The Supreme Court, Fair Use and the Future of Protected Artistic Expression; Jurist, December 1, 2022

 Jaimee Francis | Boston University School of Law, Jurist; Explainer: The Supreme Court, Fair Use and the Future of Protected Artistic Expression

"What’s at stake here?

The decision of the current Supreme Court case can shape the future of what does and does not constitute fair use. Goldsmith claimed that Warhol’s images based upon her copyrighted photographs constituted a derivative work. Thus, Goldsmith argued that the Warhol Foundation infringed her exclusive right to prepare derivative works and is therefore liable to her. The Warhol Foundation, however, argued that Warhol’s images were sufficiently transformative and thus constituted fair use. As such, the Warhol Foundation argued that it did not infringe Goldsmith’s copyright and is therefore not liable for its use of Goldsmith’s work in the Prince illustrations.

By finding in favor of Goldsmith, who owns copyright in the Prince photographs, the applicability of fair use may be limited. In this scenario, future content creators may face increased liability when creating new content based on copyrighted work. Because creativity is often inspired by some underlying work, such a decision may stifle creativity. As the Acuff-Rose case highlights, for example, works like parodies of a copyrighted work would constitute infringement without fair use. On the other hand, by finding in favor of the Warhol Foundation, which used Goldsmith’s copyrighted work in its work, future copyright owners may be denied a remedy when a user has unfairly used their creative work. Because the copyright regime has historically protected a creator’s financial incentive, such a decision may stifle creativity. In either scenario, creativity may be stifled: over-protecting a work may prevent others from using that work in their creative process, while under-protecting a work may prevent creators from entering the market without an assurance of monetary gain. As the Gerald Ford case highlights, for example, some uses may unfairly exploit the initial creator’s work. As the Supreme Court noted in that case, quoting in part an earlier decision, “The challenge of copyright is to strike the ‘difficult balance between the interests of authors and inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand, and society’s competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand.'”"

The Supreme Court meets Andy Warhol, Prince and a case that could threaten creativity; NPR, October 12, 2022

Nina Totenberg, NPR ; The Supreme Court meets Andy Warhol, Prince and a case that could threaten creativity

"You know all those famous Andy Warhol silk screen prints of Marilyn Monroe and Liz Taylor and lots of other glitterati? Now one of the most famous of these, the Prince series, is at the heart of a case the Supreme Court will examine on Wednesday. And it is a case of enormous importance to all manner of artists...

However the Supreme Court rules, its decision will have rippling practical consequences. So it is no surprise that some three dozen friend of the court briefs have been filed arguing on one side or the other, and representing everyone from the American Association of publishers and the Motion Picture Association of America to the Library Futures Institute, the Digital Media Licensing Association, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, the Recording Industry Association of America and even the union that represents NPR's reporters, editors and producers, the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.

The outcome could shift the law to favor more control by the original artist, but doing that could also inhibit artists and other content creators who build on existing work in everything from music and posters to AI creations and documentaries."