article thumbnail

How to Distinguish Transformative Fair Uses From Infringing Derivative Works?

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Many copyright professionals had hoped that the Court’s Goldsmith decision would articulate a workable standard for distinguishing transformative fair uses from infringing derivative works. Because of this, it concluded that Warhol’s works did not meaningfully compete with Goldsmith’s markets for her photograph.

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. Apparently, Warhol had created an entire series of 15 other works of pop art using Goldsmith’s initial photograph. § 107 ).

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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.

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. ” The Court noted that the “bundle of exclusive rights” granted to a copyright holder includes rights to produce “derivative works.” of a commercial nature. .”

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

Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith: The Supreme Court Revisits Transformative Fair Uses

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Many years later, after the tragic death of Prince in 2016, Vanity Fair decided to publish a special issue about him and contacted the Warhol Foundation about reusing the 1984 print for it. Consequently, the market harm factor did not cut against Warhol’s fair use defense. Goldsmith’s appeal met with success before the Second Circuit.

Fair Use 128
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. .”