2017 Copying Derivative Work Licensing 
The IP Law Blog
MAY 25, 2023
In a 7-2 decision, the high court sided with Goldsmith’s argument that Warhol’s “Orange Prince” constituted an infringing derivative work of her copyrighted photograph. However, the majority rejected this argument, stating that the new expression alone did not determine the purpose or character of the copying use.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JUNE 20, 2023
Legal Background: Copyright and Derivative Works Copyright law protects original works of authorship, including “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,” 17 U.S.C. For obvious reasons, the copyright in a photograph does not include the right to publicly perform the copyrighted work.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
JIPL Online
MARCH 15, 2021
The Conan Doyle estate, heirs to the author of the works about the famed detective Sherlock Holmes, alleged that Netflix infringed on the character Sherlock Holmes in its portrayal of Sherlock Holmes in the 2020 movie “Enola Holmes.” [2] 18] Netflix admitted it had access to and copied the memoir. [19]
LexBlog IP
MAY 25, 2023
In a 7-2 decision, the high court sided with Goldsmith’s argument that Warhol’s “Orange Prince” constituted an infringing derivative work of her copyrighted photograph. Acuff-Rose Music, which held that a work is transformative if it adds something new and has a different purpose or character.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
AUGUST 1, 2023
By Guest Blogger Tyler Ochoa Recently, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed what has become known as the “server test”: in order to be held directly liable for violating the public display right, the alleged infringer must have a fixed “copy” of the work stored on a server in its possession or control. July 17, 2023).
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] 3] Graham v.
LexBlog IP
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
A few years later, in 1984, Goldsmith’s agency, which had retained the rights to those images, licensed one of them to Vanity Fair for use in an article called “Purple Fame.” That factor asks “whether, if the challenged use becomes widespread, it will adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.” [20]
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
98 
Let's personalize your content