In reviewing the case, the justices had to provide a proper test that protects artist’s rights to monetize their work, but also encourages new art and expression. But an appeals court reversed – ruling that a new meaning or message is not enough to qualify for fair use. 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. Kagan dissent: Prior precedent in ‘shambles’ “Going forward, we will continue standing up for the rights of artists to create transformative works under the Copyright Act and the First Amendment,” said Joel Wachs, the foundation’s president, in a statement. The Andy Warhol Foundation said it disagreed with the court’s decision, but that it welcomed the majority’s “clarification that its decision is limited to that single licensing and does not question the legality of Andy Warhol’s creation of the Prince Series in 1984.” “Indeed, whether one thinks Justice Sotomayor’s majority opinion or Justice Kagan’s dissent has the better of the legal arguments, it’s hard to disagree with Kagan that such an approach could ‘stifle creativity’ across a range of artistic media – and that perhaps Congress ought to revisit whether this is the best outcome,” he said. “Although the majority opinion focuses on only one of the four factors courts are supposed to apply in determining when works of art can be fairly used by others, there’s little question that the majority opinion will have a major impact on these kinds of reproductions – making it harder for artists to repurpose the works of others even with meaningful differences (and not just reproduce them), without their permission,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. In a rare move for a Supreme Court opinion, Sotomayor included depictions of both works to illustrate her point. Sotomayor conceded that if the “purpose and character” of the works was “sufficiently distinct” – the case may have come out differently. “If an original work and a secondary use share the same or highly similar purposes,” and they are both used in a “commercial nature,” Sotomayor said, it is unlikely that “fair use” applies. She said that both Goldsmith’s photo and Warhol’s silk screen are used to depict Prince in magazine stories and share “substantially the same purpose,” even if Warhol altered the artist’s expression. Sotomayor focused on the commercial purpose of both works. Here, Sotomayor said “fair use” should not apply to an image Warhol created that is referred to as “Orange Prince.” “Goldsmith’s original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion, referring to Lynn Goldsmith, the photographer at the center of the case.Īt issue is the so-called “fair use” doctrine in copyright law that permits the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. The opinion has been closely anticipated by the global art world watching to see how the court would balance an artist’s freedom to borrow from existing works and the restrictions of copyright law. Behind the scenes in 2000 when Supreme Court liberals thought Nazi and Dred Scott references in gay rights dissent were distracting
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |