Olartemoure Blog

JANUARY 18, 2023

In 1984, Vanity Fair licensed one of her black-and-white studio portraits for $400 and commissioned Warhol to create a piece for a feature of Prince. He used a cropped photo based on one of Goldsmith’s images to create his artwork. There was no image copyright credit or compensation to Lynn Goldsmith.

Copyright 98

Copyright Artwork Copyright Infringement Fair Use 98

IP Watchdog

AUGUST 18, 2022

(DDI) acted with willful blindness in submitting a fifth Takedown Notice to Amazon asking that auto stickers it alleged infringed its licensed artwork be removed from the site. began selling a sticker that DDI alleged infringed the licensed copyright. In 2018, Alper Automotive, Inc.

Artwork 72

Artwork Licensing Copyright Copyright Infringement 72

LexBlog IP

MAY 19, 2023

In 1984, Vanity Fair sought to license the photograph for an “artist reference” in a story about the musician. Goldsmith agreed to license a one-time use of the photograph with full attribution. scholarship, or research” [2] and is evaluated through multiple factors. factor weighs in favor of fair use.

Licensing 52

Licensing Fair Use Copyright Derivative Work 52

LexBlog IP

JULY 7, 2023

A pair of copyright decisions issued in May, one involving the appropriation artist Richard Prince [1] and the other involving works portraying the musician known as Prince, explore and expand on the “fair use” defense to copyright infringement. On May 11, the U.S. 2] A week later, the U.S. 2] A week later, the U.S.

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Art Licensing Copyright Infringement 52

JIPEL Copyright Blog

APRIL 11, 2022

While a popular and respected form of art , appropriation art’s essence – the purposeful use of preexisting works – makes it especially susceptible to claims of copyright infringement. While Goldsmith had licensed the Prince photograph to be used by Andy Warhol for a piece commissioned by Vanity Fair in 1984, the license ended there.

Art 52

Art Copyright Law Fair Use Copyright 52

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] 13] AWF’s use was commercial because AWF licensed the artwork for a fee. [14]

Fair Use 130

Fair Use Licensing Cease and Desist Derivative Work 130

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.” scholarship, or research is not an infringement of copyright.”

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Licensing Cease and Desist Derivative Work 52