Remove 2021 Remove Derivative Work Remove Licensing Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

How to Distinguish Transformative Fair Uses From Infringing Derivative Works?

Kluwer Copyright Blog

2021) (available here ); “Warhol Print” also available here “Goldsmith Photograph”, Page 7, Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. 2021) (available here ) In March 2022 the U.S. “Warhol Print” (Vanity Fair), Page 8, Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. Goldsmith, 11 F.4th 4th 26 (2d Cir. Goldsmith, 11 F.4th

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

2] The Court’s decision affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the Warhol work was derivative of the original, and noted that “the new expression may be relevant to whether a copying use has a sufficiently distinct purpose or character” but that factor was not dispositive by itself. [3]

Fair Use 130
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

U.S. Supreme Court Vindicates Photographer But Destabilizes Fair Use — Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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.

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

LexBlog IP

2] The Court’s decision affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the Warhol work was derivative of the original, and noted that “the new expression may be relevant to whether a copying use has a sufficiently distinct purpose or character” but that factor was not dispositive by itself. [3]

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

LexBlog IP

2] The Court’s decision affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the Warhol work was derivative of the original, and noted that “the new expression may be relevant to whether a copying use has a sufficiently distinct purpose or character” but that factor was not dispositive by itself. [3]

article thumbnail

Will the Court Find the Answers?

BYU Copyright Blog

To provide a summary of what has happened to the case, on November 22, 2021, Judge Edward Kiel ordered the parties to commence discovery proceedings in preparation for a conference scheduled for January 24 of the following year. Chegg presented several defenses, including fair use, copyright misuse, express license, and equitable estoppel.

article thumbnail

Prince, Prince, Prints: Will the Supreme Court Revisit Fair Use?

LexBlog IP

1] That decision shook the art world, as it seems to dramatically narrow the scope of the fair use doctrine, and raises doubts about the lawfulness of many existing works. [2] On March 26, 2021, the Second Circuit issued an opinion reversing the district court’s decision. He did just that.