The Supreme Court’s decision in the copyright infringement case between photographer Lynn Goldsmith and Andy Warhol has significant implications for the protection of original works and artists’ rights. The ruling established that Goldsmith’s original photographs, including the one used by Warhol as a reference for his Prince series, are protected by copyright law.
The court’s 7-2 decision specifically addressed the reproduction of an orange-faced Prince image by Vanity Fair after the singer’s death in 2016. It emphasized that the ruling was limited to this particular case and did not call into question the legality of Warhol’s creation of the Prince series in 1984.
By affirming the copyright protection of Goldsmith’s works, the Supreme Court recognized the importance of safeguarding artists’ intellectual property rights. This decision highlights the need for proper authorization and respect for original works when creating derivative or transformative art. The ruling may have broader implications for the art world, as it reinforces the principle that using someone else’s copyrighted work without permission, even as a reference, can be considered copyright infringement. It sets a precedent for future cases involving the appropriation of copyrighted material and provides a framework for determining the boundaries of fair use and transformative art.
According to the Associated Press:
The high court ruled 7-2 for photographer Lynn Goldsmith. “Lynn Goldsmith’s original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion for the court.
The case involved images Warhol created of Prince as part of a 1984 commission for Vanity Fair. Warhol used one of Goldsmith’s photos as a starting point, a so-called artist reference, and Vanity Fair paid Goldsmith to license the photo. Warhol then created a series of images in his signature bright-colored and bold style.
Warhol died in 1987. Following Prince’s death, Vanity Fair paid his foundation $10,250 to use the orange-faced Prince portrait in a tribute issue. Goldsmith saw the cover and contacted the foundation seeking compensation, among other things. The foundation then went to court seeking to have Warhol’s images declared as not infringing on Goldsmith’s copyright. A lower court judge agreed with the foundation, but it lost on appeal.
Some amount of copying is acceptable under copyright law as “fair use.” To determine whether something counts as fair use, courts look to four factors set out in the federal Copyright Act of 1976. A lower court found that all four factors favored Goldsmith. Only the first factor — “the purpose and character of the use” of the work — was at issue in the Supreme Court case. Sotomayor wrote, “The first factor favors Goldsmith.”
Goldsmith said in a statement that she was “thrilled by today’s decision.” “This is a great day for photographers and other artists who make a living by licensing their art,” she said.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Lynn Goldsmith in the copyright infringement case against Andy Warhol solidifies the protection of original works and reinforces the importance of safeguarding artists’ intellectual property rights. The decision clarifies that photographers and other artists are entitled to copyright protection, even when their works are used as references by famous artists. This ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving the appropriation of copyrighted material and provides a framework for determining the boundaries of fair use and transformative art.
wpDiscuz