• Home
  • Politics
  • Health
  • World
  • Business
  • Finance
  • Tech
  • More
    • Sports
    • Entertainment
    • Lifestyle
What's Hot

Microsoft Bans Employees From Using ‘Chinese Propaganda’ Chatbot

May 9, 2025

How Smart Mattresses Improve Sleep Quality For Couples

May 9, 2025

OpenAI CEO Warns: ‘Not A Huge Amount Of Time’ Until China Overpowers American AI

May 9, 2025
Facebook Twitter Instagram
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
Friday, May 9
Patriot Now NewsPatriot Now News
  • Home
  • Politics

    Security video shows brazen sexual assault of California woman by homeless man

    October 24, 2023

    Woman makes disturbing discovery after her boyfriend chases away home intruder who stabbed him

    October 24, 2023

    Poll finds Americans overwhelmingly support Israel’s war on Hamas, but younger Americans defend Hamas

    October 24, 2023

    Off-duty pilot charged with 83 counts of attempted murder after allegedly trying to shut off engines midflight on Alaska Airlines

    October 23, 2023

    Leaked audio of Shelia Jackson Lee abusively cursing staffer

    October 22, 2023
  • Health

    Disparities In Cataract Care Are A Sorry Sight

    October 16, 2023

    Vaccine Stocks—Including Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech And Novavax—Slide Amid Plummeting Demand

    October 16, 2023

    Long-term steroid use should be a last resort

    October 16, 2023

    Rite Aid Files For Bankruptcy With More ‘Underperforming Stores’ To Close

    October 16, 2023

    Who’s Still Dying From Complications Related To Covid-19?

    October 16, 2023
  • World

    New York Democrat Dan Goldman Accuses ‘Conservatives in the South’ of Holding Rallies with ‘Swastikas’

    October 13, 2023

    IDF Ret. Major General Describes Rushing to Save Son, Granddaughter During Hamas Invasion

    October 13, 2023

    Black Lives Matter Group Deletes Tweet Showing Support for Hamas 

    October 13, 2023

    AOC Denounces NYC Rally Cheering Hamas Terrorism: ‘Unacceptable’

    October 13, 2023

    L.A. Prosecutors Call Out Soros-Backed Gascón for Silence on Israel

    October 13, 2023
  • Business

    Microsoft Bans Employees From Using ‘Chinese Propaganda’ Chatbot

    May 9, 2025

    OpenAI CEO Warns: ‘Not A Huge Amount Of Time’ Until China Overpowers American AI

    May 9, 2025

    Trump Announces First Post-Tariff Trade Deal

    May 8, 2025

    Electric Vehicle Sales Nosedive As GOP Takes Buzzsaw To Biden’s Mandate

    May 7, 2025

    Tyson Foods Announces It Will Bend The Knee To Trump Admin’s New Rules

    May 7, 2025
  • Finance

    Ending China’s De Minimis Exception Brings 3 Benefits for Americans

    April 17, 2025

    The Trump Tariff Shock Should Push Indonesia to Reform Its Economy

    April 17, 2025

    Tariff Talks an Opportunity to Reinvigorate the Japan-US Alliance

    April 17, 2025

    How China’s Companies Are Responding to the US Trade War

    April 16, 2025

    The US Flip-flop Over H20 Chip Restrictions 

    April 16, 2025
  • Tech

    Cruz Confronts Zuckerberg on Pointless Warning for Child Porn Searches

    February 2, 2024

    FTX Abandons Plans to Relaunch Crypto Exchange, Commits to Full Repayment of Customers and Creditors

    February 2, 2024

    Elon Musk Proposes Tesla Reincorporates in Texas After Delaware Judge Voids Pay Package

    February 2, 2024

    Tesla’s Elon Musk Tops Disney’s Bob Iger as Most Overrated Chief Executive

    February 2, 2024

    Mark Zuckerberg’s Wealth Grew $84 Billion in 2023 as Pedophiles Target Children on Facebook, Instagram

    February 2, 2024
  • More
    • Sports
    • Entertainment
    • Lifestyle
Patriot Now NewsPatriot Now News
Home»Entertainment»Supreme Court’s Warhol Decision: Is it Good or Bad for Hollywood?
Entertainment

Supreme Court’s Warhol Decision: Is it Good or Bad for Hollywood?

May 20, 2023No Comments10 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Supreme Court's Warhol Decision: Is it Good or Bad for Hollywood?
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email

Purpose and character. These are now solidly enshrined as the buzzwords of copyright law on the heels of the Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling earlier this week in the case involving the estate of Andy Warhol and photographer Lynn Goldsmith.

The decision at first blush seemed to be a clear-cut win for copyright owners and artists who create original works. But the court’s majority decision, penned with verve by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is already proving divisive among experts on intellectual property rights. It demonstrates the difficulty of setting up hard and fast rules around highly subjective questions, such as when an artistic or literary work is “transformative” of an earlier work and whether its ultimate use is for commercial purposes, or not. The case has been closely watched in part because it’s sure to have implications for the tidal wave of AI-generated art and literary works that are to emerge, and the still-larger wave of litigation likely to follow.

The Supreme Court’s Warhol decision hinges on the legal concept of “fair use,” which allows for the use of copyrighted works without the owner’s permission in certain circumstances such as for writing criticism or commentary about those works, or for use in news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research. The fair-use concept has been bolstered in the law by a four-factor test, or four guiding principles designed to help judges decide where to draw the line. In the past, if the subsequent work was seen as “transformative” of the underlying copyrighted materials — adding new elements that change the meaning or purpose of the original work – that could win protection by a fair-use claim.

In Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc. vs. Goldsmith, the case turned on the use of an orange-colored Warhol silkscreen print of a photograph of Prince (aka Orange Prince) on a 2016 Vanity Fair magazine cover that paid tribute to the legendary musician after his death. Goldsmith took the original Prince photo that Warhol had adapted for Vanity Fair as a purple-colored Prince in 1984. Back then, Goldsmith was paid $400 and received a source photographer credit from Vanity Fair. In 2016, Vanity Fair licensed the Orange Prince image from the Warhol Foundation for $10,000. After Goldsmith alerted the Warhol Foundation that she believed her copyright was violated by the 2016 use of Orange Prince, the foundation sued her, seeking a declaratory judgement of non-infringement. Goldsmith countersued. The lower court ruled in favor of the Warhol Foundation’s fair-use claim, but that was reversed on appeal.

The high court’s decision, published May 18, upheld the appellate court’s reasoning that in essence, Goldsmith’s photo and Warhol’s treatment of that photo were fundamentally the same thing – an image of Prince used to illustrate a magazine article. The fact that the Warhol Foundation cashed a $10,000 check for licensing Orange Prince to Vanity Fair was clearly a key factor for the majority. The Warhol Foundation’s assertion that Warhol’s treatment of the photo gave it an entirely different “meaning and message” did not fly with Sotomayor and six of her fellow jurists.

See also  Supreme Court Allows Apple to Keep App Store 'Tax' Pending Appeal in Epic Games Case

“If an original work and secondary use share the same or highly similar purposes, and the secondary use is commercial, the first fair use factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying,” Sotomayor wrote.

Illustrating how subjective and divisive these issues can be, the majority decision stirred a fire in Justice Elena Kagan, who penned a pugnacious dissent in which she was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts.

“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,” Kagan wrote. “It will make our world poorer.”

Kagan even poked the majority for writing defensively, in her view, about her dissent in their 38-page decision.

“The majority opinion is trained on this dissent in a way majority opinions seldom are. Maybe that makes the majority opinion self-refuting?” Kagan observed in a footnote.

Kagan cites testimonials on artistic creation from Shakespeare to Richard Rodgers to Nick Cave to the rap group that lives on in copyright law lore, 2 Live Crew (which waged a long legal battle in the 1990s over their use of the Roy Orbison song “Pretty Woman”) to bolster her argument that the creation of new works sometimes requires the inspiration and borrowing from existing copyrighted materials. She writes in detail about the silkscreen process and coloring treatment that Warhol gave to Goldsmith’s original photograph in 16 images that became known as the Prince Series.

Sotomayor was not swayed. The majority’s decision also leans hard on the notion of derivative works – a concept dear to Hollywood’s heart – meaning that the original copyright owner should have the ability to transform their own work, or demand a license if another entity should seek to adapt a book into a movie, or vice versa.

“If the last century of American art, literature, music, and film is any indication, the existing copyright law, of which today’s opinion is a continuation, is a powerful engine of creativity,” she wrote. “It will not impoverish our world to require [Warhol estate] to pay Goldsmith a fraction of the proceeds from its reuse of her copyrighted work. Recall, payments like these are incentives for artists to create original works in the first place. Nor will the Court’s decision, which is consistent with longstanding principles of fair use, snuff out the light of Western civilization, returning us to the Dark Ages of a world without Titian, Shakespeare, or Richard Rodgers.”

See also  Supreme Court Keeps Abortion Pills Legal—At Least For Now—Blocking Ruling

Copyright law experts said the Warhol decision will have the effect of enshrining the first of the four factors in the fair use test as the most important measure for adjudicating copyright infringement claims. That first factor is defined in the law as a question of what is “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.”

The first factor is defined in copyright law as:

  • The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.

The other three factors are:

  • The nature of the copyrighted work
  • The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  • The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

In the Warhol decision, the majority emphasizes that the ruling turns on the specific instance of the 2016 license of Orange Prince for use by Vanity Fair. It is not meant to open up a wave of lawsuits stemming from Warhol’s prodigious use of other photographers’ work in his art. The decision notes that a more liberal reading of fair use could allow more famous artists to profit off the work of lesser-known creators by claiming that the work is transformed just by association with a boldface name such as Warhol. The Warhol Foundation’s argument to the high court banked on persuading the judges that factor No. 1 favored their case. But the majority of the bench went the other way.

“Goldsmith’s original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists,” Sotomayor wrote. “Such protection includes the right to prepare derivative works that transform the original. The use of a copyrighted work may nevertheless be fair if, among other things, the use has a purpose and character that is sufficiently distinct from the original. In this case, however, Goldsmith’s photograph of Prince, and [Warhol Foundation’s] copying use of the photograph in an image licensed to a special edition magazine devoted to Prince, share substantially the same commercial purpose. [Warhol Foundation] has offered no other persuasive justification for its unauthorized use of the photograph.”

A day after the decision landed, copyright mavens were re-reading it carefully to grasp its significance. It comes at a time when major players such as Getty Images has at least two lawsuits pending against AI tech companies for ingesting millions of Getty-owned photos found online.

“I think the court got it right,” Jane C. Ginsburg, professor of literary and artistic property law at Columbia University School of Law, told Variety. Ginsburg filed an amicus brief in the Warhol case with two other legal scholars. “We emphasized the necessity of sorting out the relationship between derivative work rights and fair use. And we did underscore the licensing question.”

See also  Jonah Hill Welcomes His First Child

Ginsburg and others emphasized that the first of the four fair-use factors always seemed to hold more sway than the other three, in part because it is fairly broad.

“If the test is, did you create something new, then my problem is, where do you draw the line,” Ginsburg said. “I don’t think we really want judges being art critics and assessing what is the merit of the art from the artist who has been building on some other artist’s work.”

But others feel that this narrower interpretation of fair-use rights will have a chilling effect on artistic creation. It could also significantly retard the progress of machine-learning technologies that have ingested many thousands of copyrighted works with the goal of advancing AI technologies.

“Fair use is an important tool to protect new art,” Madhavi Sunder, a professor at Georgetown Law, told Variety. “While many artists were sympathetic to Goldsmith as the ‘little artist’ who was entitled to recognition and compensation, this [decision] for many artists is going to put more hurdles and permissions and royalties in the way of using inputs in new work.”

On the now-omnipresent question of AI, the challenge for copyright in the commercial realm is to train the machine to create works that are different enough so that they don’t infringe on underlying copyrights. But she warns against the dangers of halting the progress of machine learning because of copyright concerns.

“We should not be stopping the process of machines replicating human learning,” Sunder said, because that is the pathway to “allowing AI to find ways to be innovative.” She pointed to the recent plagiarism case that musician Ed Sheeran won in a claim brought by the estate of Marvin Gaye.

“The future of the [music] industry depends on the freedom to be inspired and create new work and not be stifled by copyright,” Sunder said. The high court’s Warhol decision “is not the clear-cut victory that artists think it is.”

Marc Toberoff, a copyright attorney and veteran entertainment litigator, agreed.

“It’s clear the decision significantly narrowed fair use rights of artists and writers,” Toberoff told Variety. “On balance I don’t think that is good for the industry.”

To Columbia Law’s Ginsburg, the Warhol case was not a hard call even though she notes that fair-use claims are inevitably tricky and determined on a case-by-case basis.

“Fair use by definition deals in gray areas,” Ginsburg said. “In a case like this one where the substitution effect was so clear, I was surprised the Court took the case because to me it was a really straightforward case.”

bad Courts Decision good Hollywood Supreme Warhol
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email

Related Posts

125 Funny Good Morning Quotes to Start Your Day with Hilarious Humor and Less Stress

March 11, 2025

Left’s Attempts To Help Disabled Workers May Be Doing More Harm Than Good

March 9, 2025

175 Good Night Quotes for Him, Her and Friends (Beautiful Wishes and Messages)

March 3, 2025

170 Positive Tuesday Quotes for Work, Motivation and a Good Morning and Day

February 27, 2025
Add A Comment

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Top Posts

Let Users Select How Crazy It Gets

March 10, 2023

Another Russian Train Derails After Hitting Explosive Device Near Ukraine

May 3, 2023

Police Hunt Down Dinosaur Following South Dakota Heist

June 18, 2023

China’s Impatient State Capital Impedes the Innovations It Aims to Promote

March 25, 2025
Don't Miss

Microsoft Bans Employees From Using ‘Chinese Propaganda’ Chatbot

Business May 9, 2025

Microsoft has banned employees from using DeepSeek — the viral Chinese chatbot it worries is…

How Smart Mattresses Improve Sleep Quality For Couples

May 9, 2025

OpenAI CEO Warns: ‘Not A Huge Amount Of Time’ Until China Overpowers American AI

May 9, 2025

Short and Funny Sayings for a Happy Summer with Friends

May 9, 2025
About
About

This is your World, Tech, Health, Entertainment and Sports website. We provide the latest breaking news straight from the News industry.

We're social. Connect with us:

Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest
Categories
  • Business (4,112)
  • Entertainment (4,220)
  • Finance (3,202)
  • Health (1,938)
  • Lifestyle (1,628)
  • Politics (3,084)
  • Sports (4,036)
  • Tech (2,006)
  • Uncategorized (4)
  • World (3,944)
Our Picks

Tesla’s Cybertruck Faces Huge Problems as Elon Musk Struggles with ‘the Basics’

June 11, 2023

‘I Refute These Criminal Allegations’

September 16, 2023

Merrick Garland Asked Point Blank If Hunter Deal Is A ‘Different Standard Of Justice’

June 21, 2023
Popular Posts

Microsoft Bans Employees From Using ‘Chinese Propaganda’ Chatbot

May 9, 2025

How Smart Mattresses Improve Sleep Quality For Couples

May 9, 2025

OpenAI CEO Warns: ‘Not A Huge Amount Of Time’ Until China Overpowers American AI

May 9, 2025
© 2025 Patriotnownews.com - All rights reserved.
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.