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."
