Remove 2016 Remove Artwork Remove Derivative Work Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

How to Distinguish Transformative Fair Uses From Infringing Derivative Works?

Kluwer Copyright Blog

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. Hence, the Foundation’s use was non-transformative.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Holds Warhol’s “Orange Prince” Not Transformative, Not Fair Use

IP Tech Blog

When Prince passed away in 2016, the Andy Warhol Foundation (“AWF”) licensed “Orange Prince” for use on the cover of a commemorative magazine cover. Plainly the Warhol “Orange Prince” was a derivative work, but was there something about it that could support a finding of fair use? Goldsmith, Andy Warhol not only used Ms.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Holds Warhol’s “Orange Prince” Not Transformative, Not Fair Use

LexBlog IP

When Prince passed away in 2016, the Andy Warhol Foundation (“AWF”) licensed “Orange Prince” for use on the cover of a commemorative magazine cover. Plainly the Warhol “Orange Prince” was a derivative work, but was there something about it that could support a finding of fair use?

article thumbnail

No Free Use in the Purple Rain – U.S. Supreme Court Finds License of Andy Warhol’s “Orange Prince” Infringes Photographer’s Copyright

LexBlog IP

However, Andy Warhol would go on to create 15 additional works using the Goldsmith photograph, now known as the artist’s “Prince Series.” This ownership interest in the creative work is balanced with the general public’s need to access the creative arts and exercise First Amendment rights. .”

article thumbnail

Let’s Go Hazy: Making Sense of Fair Use After Warhol

Copyright Lately

Goldsmith (“ Warhol “) is that relatively rare fair use case in which both the original and follow-on works were more or less directly competing in the same market. More typically, two works aren’t market substitutes, which means that determining whether a secondary use is justified is more difficult.

article thumbnail

Fair Use: Graham v. Prince and Warhol v. Goldsmith

LexBlog IP

8] Second, as to the works’ purpose, the court found that it was unclear whether Prince intended to create a parody of the original photographs, a satire of society’s use of social media, or neither, pointing out Prince’s own contradictory testimony on the question. [9] Many derivative works.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Finds Warhol’s Commercial Licensing of “Orange Prince” to Vanity Fair Is Not Fair Use and Infringes Goldsmith’s Famed Rock Photo

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Unbeknownst to Goldsmith, Warhol also created fifteen other works based on the photograph, including Orange Prince. In 2016, Vanity Fair licensed Orange Prince from AWF for the cover of their commemorative issue about Prince. The nature of the copyrighted work. Goldsmith was not paid or credited for this use.

Fair Use 130