Current Events > Supreme Court Rules Against Andy Warhol in Copyright Disputeover Prince portrait

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/18/politics/supreme-court-prince-andy-warhol/index.html

Hey everybody, this guy's a phony!

"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the late Andy Warhol infringed on a photographers copyright when he created a series of silk screens based on a photograph of the late singer Prince.

The ruling was 7-2.

The court rejected arguments made by a lawyer of the Andy Warhol Foundation (the artist died in 1987) that his work was sufficiently transformative so as not to trigger copyright concerns.

The opinion has been closely anticipated by the global art world watching to see how the court would balance an artists freedom to borrow from existing works and the restrictions of copyright law.

Goldsmiths original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists. Such protection includes the right to prepare derivative works that transform the original, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion, referring to Lynn Goldsmith, the photographer at the center of the case.

In a dissent from Justice Elena Kagan that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, the liberal justice wrote: It will stifle creativity of every sort. It will impede new art and music and literature. It will thwart the expression of new ideas and the attainment of new knowledge. It will make our world poorer.
Central to the case was whether Warhol infringed on Goldsmiths copyright when he created a series of silk screens of the musician Prince.

At issue is the so-called fair use doctrine in copyright law that permits the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances.
In the case at hand, a district court ruled in favor of Warhol, basing its decision on the fact that the two works in question had a different meaning and message. But an appeals court reversed ruling that a new meaning or message is not enough to qualify for fair use."

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/4/0/AABQgxAAEfPc.jpg

Statement from Andy Warhol regarding the ruling: "........."

So is Campbell's Soup gonna sue next?

masterpug53 posted...

Statement from Andy Warhol regarding the ruling: "........."

Hehehe, I know right. Still, interesting that Andy Warhol got retroactively slap-tagged.

Blue_Target posted...

So is Campbell's Soup gonna sue next?

See, that's a very good question.

Here were the for and against decisions...

"Goldsmiths original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists. Such protection includes the right to prepare derivative works that transform the original, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion, referring to Lynn Goldsmith, the photographer at the center of the case."

VS

"In a dissent from Justice Elena Kagan that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, the liberal justice wrote: It will stifle creativity of every sort. It will impede new art and music and literature. It will thwart the expression of new ideas and the attainment of new knowledge. It will make our world poorer.
Central to the case was whether Warhol infringed on Goldsmiths copyright when he created a series of silk screens of the musician Prince."

I kind of agree TBH. The dude didn't transform shit he just put filters over the photo.

Tyranthraxus posted...

I kind of agree TBH. The dude didn't transform shit he just put filters over the photo.

But is it wrong to paint a painting of a real life photo...? It's subjective, but I guess it depends on how realistic it is, I guess?

Tyranthraxus posted...

I kind of agree TBH. The dude didn't transform shit he just put filters over the photo.

Yeah I've seen more inspired stuff on snapchat.

The actual repercussion of this decision is going to be in the field of generative ai. If Warhol using a photo and then throwing a filter on top of it isn't sufficiently derivative, what about dall-e scraping tens of thousands of images and then using them to produce something derivative?

s0nicfan posted...

The actual repercussion of this decision is going to be in the field of generative ai. If Warhol using a photo and then throwing a filter on top of it isn't sufficiently derivative, what about dall-e scraping tens of thousands of images and then using them to produce something derivative?

Yeah, put up to the test those programs are infringing in a big way. But with that, how do you find your shit...

...this is catastrophic for SFM porn.

s0nicfan posted...

The actual repercussion of this decision is going to be in the field of generative ai. If Warhol using a photo and then throwing a filter on top of it isn't sufficiently derivative, what about dall-e scraping tens of thousands of images and then using them to produce something derivative?

AI content is non copyrightable SCOTUS already weighed in.

I don't agree with this ruling, but this looks like the exact same thing that happened with that iconic Obama "Change" image

"top text"/"bottom text" memes are also illegal now.

Questionmarktarius posted...

...this is catastrophic for SFM porn.

I think porn sufficiently counts as parody for fair use.

Questionmarktarius posted...

"top text"/"bottom text" memes are also illegal now.

They always were. People just don't like talking about that because it makes them uncomfortable.

Dang, it's a 50-50 in the poll.

Tyranthraxus posted...

I think porn sufficiently counts as parody for fair use.

If you're pulling the models directly from Overwatch and putting them in naughty poses, there's gonna be trouble.

Fair. Not like its an abstract version of him. Its Prince! And somebody made money off your own image as a photographer.

Also cool to have an interesting, non partisan ruling.

Ironically, Prince is also affected by this decision.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/6/2/AAEhCpAAEfPy.jpg

But it's reformative pop art. Like someone said already, shall Campbell file suit now? That would be madness.

Cocytus posted...

But it's reformative pop art. Like someone said already, shall Campbell file suit now? That would be madness.

Not so much about if it's right or wrong, but whether they're allowed to if they wanted. They probably never tried, cause it was probably marketing for the soup to have important paintings after your product.

CARRRNE_ASADA posted...

Not so much about if it's right or wrong, but whether they're allowed to if they wanted. They probably never tried, cause it was probably marketing for the soup to have important paintings after your product.

It's so strange. I feel like if I did one that said "Kraft" in yellow on a blue background, or similar, and it made money, I would be sued. But like you said Campbell, they're not taking the option. But it would be a big deal if such an iconic work got a copyright filed against it.