Remove Derivative Work Remove Fair Use Remove Licensing Remove Reporting
article thumbnail

Let’s Go Hazy: Making Sense of Fair Use After Warhol

Copyright Lately

Five things to know about the Supreme Court’s new purpose-driven fair use opinion in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (“ Warhol “) is that relatively rare fair use case in which both the original and follow-on works were more or less directly competing in the same market.

article thumbnail

Use of Warhol’s Prince Image Found Not to Be Sufficiently Transformative for Fair Use 

LexBlog IP

On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court found that artistic changes to a pre-existing work, alone, not necessarily sufficient to make a derivative work fair use. Applying a new lens on how to view the purpose of a derivative work under U.S. copyright law. Copyright law in the U.S.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Copyright Parody Exception Denied Due to Defendant’s Discriminatory Use

TorrentFreak

is one of the most interesting cases in history to rely on a fair use defense, arguing that the alleged infringement qualifies as a parody. ” 2 Live Crew had previously sought to license the track from Acuff-Rose to be used as a parody; Acuff-Rose refused and 2 Live Crew used it anyway. .”

Copyright 116
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

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. The first factor of fair use considers the nature of and reasons for a copier’s use of an original work. [4]

article thumbnail

Deadly Dolls and a Forgotten Copyright Exception

Copyright Lately

Vila licensed his photo to various online and print publications for use in articles about Shayk. Deadly Doll’s theory was that by taking a photo of Shayk wearing clothes that included its artwork, Vila had created an unlawful derivative work that reproduced its copyrighted image. 17 U.S.C. §

article thumbnail

HIT NETFLIX CONTENT AND THE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT THAT FOLLOWS

JIPL Online

7] Before the court could decide if the subtitled version, a type of derivative work, could still be protected even if the underlying film on its own was available to be used by all, both parties settled. [8]. 14] Before lawyers got involved, pressure from the photographer resulted in the granting of a licensing fee. [15]

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 and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2] Goldsmith was not paid or credited for this use.

Fair Use 130