WASHINGTON — The U.S. The Supreme Court concluded Thursday that the 2016 release of an Andy Warhol image of musician Prince infringed on a photographer’s copyright, a ruling that a dissenting justice claimed would impede artistic expression.
The Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of photographer Lynn Goldsmith. “Lynn Goldsmith’s original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists,” stated Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her ruling.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern that the judgment would “stifle creativity of all kinds” and urged that the majority “go back to school” for an Art History 101 refresher course.
Warhol created the photos in question as part of a 1984 assignment for Vanity Fair. Warhol utilized one of Goldsmith’s photographs as a starting point, a technique known as artist reference, and Vanity Fair paid Goldsmith to license the photograph. Then, in his trademark brightly colored and flamboyant style, Warhol made a series of images.
Vanity Fair published one of the resulting photographs, depicting Prince with a purple face. Following Prince’s death in 2016, Vanity Fair published a cover with a new image from the series — Prince with an orange face. The justices concentrated on the second use in the case.
Lawyers for Warhol’s foundation contended that the artist had changed the shot and that the magazine’s reproduction of the orange-faced Prince did not violate copyright law. However, most justices agreed that a lower court had appropriately decided with Goldsmith in this case.
Sotomayor stated that the court had no opinion “as to the creation, display, or sale of any of the original” Warhol paintings or whether they would be considered copyright infringement. “The same copying may be fair when used for one purpose but not another,” she explained.
In a dissenting opinion, Kagan questioned, “If Warhol does not get credit for transformative copying, who will?” Chief Justice John Roberts joined her in dissent.
The U.S. The Supreme Court concluded Thursday that the 2016 release of an Andy Warhol image of musician Prince infringed on a photographer’s copyright.
Kagan said the majority’s ruling will “impede new art, music, and literature” and “thwart the expression of new ideas and the attainment of new knowledge.” “It will make our world poorer,” she said at the end.
According to Kagan, the visual arts have a long history of imitation and copying. She mentioned paintings by Giorgione and his disciple Titian, who depicted a reclining naked woman. The photographs were among more than a dozen in the decision, which is unusual for a Supreme Court decision. Images occasionally feature in opinions, particularly in art cases, but the color was especially useful this time. Without it, the purple-faced and orange-faced Prince photos would be identical.
The original photograph by Goldsmith is in black and white. Vanity Fair gave her $400 to license it to Warhol, who used it to create 16 works, including two pencil sketches and 14 silkscreen prints. The silkscreens are created in the same style as his famous pictures of Marilyn Monroe, Jacqueline Kennedy, and Mao Zedong. He cropped, enlarged, and altered the tones and lighting of Goldsmith’s image. Then he embellished it with vibrant colors and hand-drawn outlines.
Vanity Fair gave her $400 to license it to Warhol, who used it to create 16 works, including two pencil sketches and 14 silkscreen prints.
With its 1984 piece, Vanity Fair featured only one of Warhol’s photos, the purple-faced Prince. The essay “Purple Fame” was published shortly after Prince’s hit “Purple Rain.” Goldsmith, a well-known music photographer, received a little credit for Warhol’s image.
Warhol passed away in 1987. Vanity Fair paid Prince’s charity $10,250 to use the orange-faced Prince photo in a commemorative issue following his death. Goldsmith spotted the cover and approached the organization, among other things, requesting reimbursement. The foundation subsequently proceeded to court, claiming that Warhol’s images did not violate Goldsmith’s copyright. A lower court judge sided with the foundation but was overturned on appeal.
A certain amount of copying is permissible under copyright law as “fair use.” Courts employ four considerations outlined in the federal Copyright Act of 1976 to assess whether something is fair use. According to a lower court, all four reasons favored Goldsmith. The Supreme Court ruling only addressed the first factor, “the purpose and character of the use,” of the work. According to Sotomayor, “the first factor favours Goldsmith.”
According to Joel Wachs, president of The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, the foundation disagrees with the court’s decision but welcomes the justices’ “clarification that its decision is limited to that single licencing and does not call into question the legality of Andy Warhol’s creation of the Prince Series in 1984.”
In a statement, Goldsmith said she was “thrilled by today’s decision.” “This is a great day for photographers and other artists who make a living by licencing their art,” she says.
The case number is 21-869, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Lynn Goldsmith.
SOURCE – (AP)
