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. However, such uses must be licensed or be held unfair.

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

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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Copyright Parody Exception Denied Due to Defendant’s Discriminatory Use

TorrentFreak

” 2 Live Crew had previously sought to license the track from Acuff-Rose to be used as a parody; Acuff-Rose refused and 2 Live Crew used it anyway. In 2022, Lokka faced Finland’s Supreme Court over videos of a 2016 protest published to his YouTube channel, to which Lokka added subtitles in various languages.

Copyright 116
article thumbnail

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

IP Tech Blog

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. Goldsmith, Andy Warhol not only used Ms.

article thumbnail

Prince Pop Art Not a Fair Use: SCOTUS Rules Against Warhol

LexBlog IP

The Supreme Court ruled on May 18 that Andy Warhol’s “Orange Prince” work of pop art was not a fair use when licensed to Condé Nast in 2016. ” Goldsmith’s photograph was then licensed to Vanity Fair in 1984 for $400 as a “one time” “artist reference for an illustration.”

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Holds Specific Use of Warhol’s “Orange Prince” Not Fair Use

LexBlog IP

The first factor did not apply to Warhol’s image as published in Condé Nast in 2016, so that specific use was not fair use. ” Thus, being licensed for different magazine articles, “the original photograph and AWF’s copying use of it share substantially the same purpose. of a commercial nature.

article thumbnail

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

LexBlog IP

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.