Artwork Licensing Magazine Marketing 
LexBlog IP
MAY 19, 2023
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. AWF licensed the “Orange Prince” to Condé Nast for an article about Prince.
Kluwer Copyright Blog
JUNE 5, 2023
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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright Lately
MAY 22, 2023
In a 7-2 decision , the Court ruled that the commercial licensing of Andy Warhol’s “Orange Prince” to Condé Nast to illustrate a story about the late musician shared “substantially the same purpose” as the original Lynn Goldsmith photo from which Warhol’s silkscreen was derived, and therefore weighed against fair use.
IP Tech Blog
JUNE 2, 2023
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.
LexBlog IP
JUNE 2, 2023
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.
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] 2] A week later, the U.S. 3] Graham v.
LexBlog IP
MAY 19, 2023
The Supreme Court narrowed its attention to the only issue before it, the use of the image in a magazine instead of Goldsmith’s photo, as opposed to as a series of paintings/lithographs. Some artists were concerned that to allow such appropriation without limits would undercut the secondary market for original works of art.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content