The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the late Andy Warhol infringed on a photographer’s copyright when he created a series of silk screens based on a photograph of the late singer Prince.

The ruling was 7-2, with Justice Elena Kagan penning a stinging dissent and arguing that the opinion will “stifle creativity of every sort.”

The court rejected arguments made by a lawyer of the Andy Warhol Foundation (the artist died in 1987) that his work was sufficiently transformative so as not to trigger copyright concerns.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/18/politics/supreme-court-prince-andy-warhol/index.html

I guess next someone will make a NFT collection out of it and try to sell it for millions.

It doesn't seem like a fair fight, what with Warhol being dead.

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

It doesn't seem like a fair fight, what with Warhol being dead.

Sure but the Andy Warhol Foundation who owns the rights has assets of about $US 300 million. AWF was the loser in the above US Supreme Court decision.

 

"As the owner of the copyrights to works of art created during Warhol's lifetime and the registrant of numerous “Warhol” trademarks internationally, the Foundation ensures that his artwork is accessible and exists in the world in meaningful ways that stay true to his forward-thinking spirit."

 

https://warholfoundation.org/warhol/licensing

 

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

Sure but the Andy Warhol Foundation who owns the rights has assets of about $US 300 million. AWF was the loser in the above US Supreme Court decision.

 

"As the owner of the copyrights to works of art created during Warhol's lifetime and the registrant of numerous “Warhol” trademarks internationally, the Foundation ensures that his artwork is accessible and exists in the world in meaningful ways that stay true to his forward-thinking spirit."

 

https://warholfoundation.org/warhol/licensing

 

That went right over your head.

9 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That went right over your head.

Oh well this -- and the recent ruling in Hachette v Internet archive US District Court NY -- are two recent knocks to the 'transformative' argument in fair use copyright exception.

16 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Sure but the Andy Warhol Foundation who owns the rights has assets of about $US 300 million. AWF was the loser in the above US Supreme Court decision.

 

"As the owner of the copyrights to works of art created during Warhol's lifetime and the registrant of numerous “Warhol” trademarks internationally, the Foundation ensures that his artwork is accessible and exists in the world in meaningful ways that stay true to his forward-thinking spirit."

 

https://warholfoundation.org/warhol/licensing

 

Maybe some day I'll start marking comments which are obviously jokes as such. Today is not that day. Nor will tomorrow be.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Maybe some day I'll start marking comments which are obviously jokes as such. Today is not that day. Nor tomorrow.

I knew it was a joke. I was just waiting to see if anyone was really interested in this before commenting.

So what's next, Campbell soups claiming copyright?

Well they actually address this in the Supreme Court decision as to why Campbell Soup was fair use but the Prince silk screens were not.

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

It doesn't seem like a fair fight, what with Warhol being dead.

Prince would be turning in his grave !!

8 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

Prince would be turning in his grave !!

Or twerking.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Or twerking.

He was a twerker ?

So I see that any discussion re: this ruling on Warhol and the ruling a few weeks ago to the Hachette v Internet Archive case as significant blows to the Access to Knowledge (or A2K) movement is going nowhere.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_to_Knowledge_movement

 

But especially as in Assoc .Justice Kagan's dissent:

 

Kagan, meanwhile, in a scathing opinion joined by Roberts, praised Warhol as the "avatar of transformative copying" and accused the majority of showing a "lack of appreciation for the way his works differ in both aesthetics and message" from the originals.

 

"It will stifle creativity of every sort. It will impede new art and music and literature. It will thwart the expression of new ideas and the attainment of new knowledge. It will make our world poorer," Kagan wrote of the ruling.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-warhol-supreme-court-prince-photograph/

 

And to the contrary supporting the decision from Association of American Publishers (AAP) 

 

Importantly,  (the decision) reaffirms the fact that transformative use under the first fair use factor requires a robust analysis about the use at issue and cannot be interpreted so broadly as to swallow the derivative work right.”

 

https://publishers.org/news/aap-statement-on-supreme-court-decision-in-copyright-fair-use-case-andy-warhol-foundation-v-lynn-goldsmith/