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

s (AWF), [1] in a long-awaited decision impacting fair use under Section 107(1) of the Copyright Act. Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2] Goldsmith was not paid or credited for this use. 107), “when it conveys a different meaning or message from its source material.”

Fair Use 130
article thumbnail

3 Count: Warhol Battle

Plagiarism Today

The Appeals Court ruled against the Warhol estate finding that the images in question were not a fair use. The lawsuit was filed in California and accuses Zulily of using their designs on fabrics that they have sold through their site. However, the estate appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments yesterday.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing v. McCandless

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Case Citation : Digital Marketing Advisors v. Heldman. * Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe. * Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v. New Destiny Church. * ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v. McCandless Group, LLC, 2022 WL 17403067 (C.D.

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

’s (AWF), [1] in a long-awaited decision impacting fair use under Section 107(1) of the Copyright Act. Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2] Goldsmith was not paid or credited for this use. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides that “fair use of a 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

’s (AWF), [1] in a long-awaited decision impacting fair use under Section 107(1) of the Copyright Act. Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2] Goldsmith was not paid or credited for this use. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides that “fair use of a copyrighted work.

article thumbnail

People Don’t Come to See the Tattoo, They Come to See the Show

IP Tech Blog

The twists and turns of the case have some fun details, including Plaintiff demanding $10 million from Netflix in a pre-filing cease and desist letter (Netflix declined to pay), but we will focus on the legal issues. Netflix moved to dismiss the complaint on, among other grounds, fair use. Lynn Goldsmith, et al. ,

article thumbnail

People Don’t Come to See the Tattoo, They Come to See the Show

LexBlog IP

The twists and turns of the case have some fun details, including Plaintiff demanding $10 million from Netflix in a pre-filing cease and desist letter (Netflix declined to pay), but we will focus on the legal issues. Netflix moved to dismiss the complaint on, among other grounds, fair use. Lynn Goldsmith, et al. ,