LexBlog IP

MAY 25, 2023

The decision affirms a previous ruling by the Second Circuit, which found that Warhol’s artwork shared the same commercial purpose as the original photograph taken by photographer Lynn Goldsmith. The Andy Warhol Foundation contended that the artworks were transformative and gave new meaning to Goldsmith’s photo.

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Derivative Work Artwork Copyright Law 52

LexBlog IP

JUNE 2, 2023

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 et al, Case No. ” Unbeknownst to Ms.

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Derivative Work Copying Licensing 52

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

LexBlog IP

MAY 19, 2023

The Supreme Court narrowed its attention to the only issue before it, the use of the image in a magazine instead of Goldsmith’s photo, as opposed to as a series of paintings/lithographs. copyright law. Applying a new lens on how to view the purpose of a derivative work under U.S. copyright law.

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Derivative Work Copyright Law Art 52

Kluwer Copyright Blog

FEBRUARY 2, 2023

AI-generated works have won awards: The Crow , an “AI-made” film won the Jury Award at the Cannes Short Film Festival and the story of an AI artwork winning the Colorado State Fair’s annual art competition was reported in The New York Times. AI-generated art was used for magazine covers, including Cosmopolitan and The Economist.

Copyright 145

Copyright Art Fair Use Registration 145

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

MAY 30, 2022

Finally, it points out Viacom is the owner of three valid trademark registrations for the KRUSTY KRAB mark and 400 copyright registrations covering “creative aspects of the SpongeBob SquarePants franchise,” including episodes from the animated television series, movies, drawings, and stylebooks featuring artwork from the franchise.

Blogging 90

Blogging Social Media Television Fair Use 90

Intellectual Property Law Blog

JUNE 5, 2023

3] The Court found that the Warhol Foundation’s licensing of the Orange Prince to Conde Nast did not have a sufficiently different purpose as the Goldsmith photograph because both were “portraits of Prince used in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince.” [4] Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2]

Fair Use 130

Fair Use Licensing Cease and Desist Derivative Work 130

Art Law Journal

AUGUST 18, 2022

Laws regarding the use of a person’s likeness, also known as the right of publicity, ensures that a model or other subject of an artwork controls the commercial exploitation of their name, image, or persona. The Model has produced a valid driver’s license, birth certificate, or other proof of age to the Publisher. ENTIRE AGREEMENT.

Publishing 85

Publishing Art Contracts Artwork 85

Patently-O

OCTOBER 11, 2022

Warhol’s Estate argues that the artworks represent a commentary on the dehumanizing nature of celebrity whereas the Goldsmith photos merely reflect Prince in his unique human form. One reason why the magazine knew to reach-out to Goldsmith was that her photos had also previously been used as magazine cover-art.

Fair Use 134

Fair Use Copyright Derivative Work Art 134

LexBlog IP

JUNE 5, 2023

3] The Court found that the Warhol Foundation’s licensing of the Orange Prince to Conde Nast did not have a sufficiently different purpose as the Goldsmith photograph because both were “portraits of Prince used in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince.” Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use.

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Licensing Cease and Desist Derivative Work 52

LexBlog IP

MAY 26, 2023

3] The Court found that the Warhol Foundation’s licensing of the Orange Prince to Conde Nast did not have a sufficiently different purpose as the Goldsmith photograph because both were “portraits of Prince used in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince.” Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use.

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Licensing Cease and Desist Derivative Work 52

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

Kluwer Copyright Blog

JULY 16, 2023

Vanity Fair magazine had commissioned Warhol’s artwork in 1984 to accompany an article about the singer’s rise to fame based on Goldsmith’s photograph under a one-time-use “artist reference” license between Vanity Fair and Goldsmith’s agent. It will focus on the s.10(3)

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. DJ sought declaratory judgment that Prince Series as such was transformative, grounded in the artwork itself; a static claim w/o regard to specific use or purpose.

Fair Use 49

Fair Use Derivative Work Licensing Marketing 49