Supreme Court Rules Andy Warhol's Image of Prince Breaches Copyright Laws

[former9thward]

WASHINGTON—A celebrity photographer won a copyright case over Andy Warhol’s use of a picture she shot of Prince for a magazine, in a Thursday Supreme Court decision narrowing the “fair use” rights of artists and writers to build upon existing works to create something new.

Writing for a 7-2 court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said a print licensed by the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts to publisher Condé Nast served essentially as a substitute for the photograph Lynn Goldsmith shot of the musician for an earlier magazine assignment, despite differences in color, material and cropping. As a result, she wrote, Warhol’s print was merely derivative of Goldsmith’s photo rather than transformative.

“The purpose of the image is substantially the same as that of Goldsmith’s photograph. Both are portraits of Prince used in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince,” Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Sotomayor’s opinion prompted an impassioned dissent from Justice Elena Kagan, who faulted the majority for failing to grasp Warhol’s revolutionary impact on visual art. “He reframed and reformulated—in a word, transformed—images created first by others. Campbell’s soup cans and Brillo boxes. Photos of celebrity icons: Marilyn, Elvis, Jackie, Liz—and, as most relevant here, Prince. That’s how Warhol earned his conspicuous place in every college’s Art History 101,” Kagan wrote, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-andy-warhols-image-of-prince-breaches-copyright-laws-e6c35d52

[CANADIANBEAVER69]

1. My thought is that a photo image is different than

people, objects, etc. If Warhol had made his print of the actual photo and not just the image the photo contained then it may have gone his way. I know that sounds off but I think an image on a photo is different than an object (soup can) or person (Liz etc).

I don't know if previous Warhol prints were from photos of those celebs. or his own. If they were from photos, then I disagree with the verdict, because all previous prints photographers should also sue then based on this outcome.