5 ms·

The case litigating Andy Warhol’s use of a photograph of Prince

39 points by Amorymeltzer 4y ago

rendall 4y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20221025140624/https://www.nybooks.com/online/2022/10/25/warhol-prince-controversy/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221025140624/https://www.nyboo...
- fotta 4y ago
  This still has a paywall, fyi
  - password4321 4y ago
    https://archive.ph/bNigE https://archive.ph/bNigE
dang 4y ago
Related: A legal dispute that will test the limits of fair use - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33053286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33053286 - Oct 2022 (260 comments) Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26919044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26919044 - April 2021 (58 comments)
bigmattystyles 4y ago
Prince himself used an image of Dave Chappelle disguised as Prince. Chappelle said this ‘That's a Prince judo move right there. … You make fun of Prince in a sketch and he'll just use you in his album cover. … What am I going to do — sue him for using a picture of me dressed up like him? … That's checkmate right there.’ Ironically though, I’d argue what Prince did here was not fair use. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast_Can_Wait https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast_Can_Wait
- 6stringmerc 4y ago
  It wasn't fair use in the least. It was up to Dave & probably Comedy Central and the bad press would've done damage - it was a great move from a marketing standpoint. Not that commercial nature is a block for proper fair use (see: Weird Al's album sales) but other arrangements are...less clear at first sight sometimes.
  - zinekeller 4y ago
    > (see: Weird Al's album sales) Unfortunately, that's a bad example, since Weird Al always gets permission from the original artists/songwriters/composers as may be the case. For example, he scrapped parodies based on Lady Gaga's songs because she (or the record company?) denied his use, although it's available online (non-commercial distribution): https://alyankovic.wordpress.com/the-gaga-saga/ https://alyankovic.wordpress.com/the-gaga-saga/. Will he pass the four factors? He thinks so, but he still thinks it's a bit rude to not ask for permission.
    - ok_dad 4y ago
      Eventually, though, Lady Gaga herself approved that song. It was her manager that initially didn’t approve it (or at least her manager took the blame, heh).
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Prince was a well known prat, but this lawsuit is about what Andy Warhol did, not Prince. Prince's involvement in this case is only being the subject of the photograph. The lawsuit is between Lynn Goldsmith and Warhol's estate. The general hypocrisy / idiocy of Prince is completely irrelevant.
  - bigmattystyles 4y ago
    I thought it was relevant and funny little anecdote
    - 4y ago
6stringmerc 4y ago
I am really, really tired of a large swath of journalists and intelligent people confusing the Fair Use concept whenever these cases come up. This, Goldiblox, and Blurred Lines are all headline cases where the defense was, in short, "you'll ruin art if this one case is found against the popular artist!" and that's it. No real legal footing to defend against the assertion the case in point is not fair use. The four factor test is clear. Plain English. Many folks don't bother to read it, so I suggest looking it up yourself and seeing it in the full context of the documentation. Warhol deserves to lose, I put the odds at 85% Warhol will lose, and I'm doing my best not to lose my sanity with so many misinformed or willfully ignorant (Mike Masnick) to argue feelings versus facts. There are many more good Fair Use cases than this one, and that should start out every discussion or essay. It gets clicks, I understand, but it's also a game of whack-a-mole for me, because it's so pervasive. I should've re-taken the LSAT and gotten that full ride to Pepperdine to pursue IP law...oh well...passion never dies. It's still relevant to my interests as a musician and creator. There are rules, Smokey...
- bigmattystyles 4y ago
  Did blurred lines argue fair use or did they claim they were different and just merely reminded of the Gaye song and the jury didn’t buy it?
- danaris 4y ago
  This shouldn't even be a case about Fair Use. Lynn Goldsmith sold the photograph, with full rights, to Vanity Fair, which then commissioned Warhol to make the Prince artwork out of it. Then, when Vanity Fair started doing stuff with it again in 2016, Goldsmith saw a chance to cash in, and sued...not Vanity Fair, no; the Warhol foundation, which guarantees a much higher-profile case, and presumably has more money. This should, by all sanity, be, a simple, cut and dried contract case: Did the sale of the photograph to Vanity Fair include the (transferable) right to make derivative works, or did it not? If the Supreme Court makes a ruling that affects Fair Use on this in any way, it's 100% because they wanted an excuse to do so. They have a very easy route to ruling on much narrower grounds, or kicking the case back to the lower courts.
nullc 4y ago
Doesn't actually contain any discussion of the warhol case for essentially all readers due to the paywall. Here is some coverage on techdirt instead: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/andy-warhol/ https://www.techdirt.com/tag/andy-warhol/

39 points by Amorymeltzer 4y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20221025140624/https://www.nybooks.com/online/2022/10/25/warhol-prince-controversy/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221025140624/https://www.nyboo...

fotta 4y ago
This still has a paywall, fyi
- password4321 4y ago
  https://archive.ph/bNigE https://archive.ph/bNigE

dang 4y ago

Related: A legal dispute that will test the limits of fair use - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33053286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33053286 - Oct 2022 (260 comments) Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26919044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26919044 - April 2021 (58 comments)

bigmattystyles 4y ago

Prince himself used an image of Dave Chappelle disguised as Prince. Chappelle said this ‘That's a Prince judo move right there. … You make fun of Prince in a sketch and he'll just use you in his album cover. … What am I going to do — sue him for using a picture of me dressed up like him? … That's checkmate right there.’ Ironically though, I’d argue what Prince did here was not fair use. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast_Can_Wait https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast_Can_Wait

6stringmerc 4y ago
It wasn't fair use in the least. It was up to Dave & probably Comedy Central and the bad press would've done damage - it was a great move from a marketing standpoint. Not that commercial nature is a block for proper fair use (see: Weird Al's album sales) but other arrangements are...less clear at first sight sometimes.
- zinekeller 4y ago
  > (see: Weird Al's album sales) Unfortunately, that's a bad example, since Weird Al always gets permission from the original artists/songwriters/composers as may be the case. For example, he scrapped parodies based on Lady Gaga's songs because she (or the record company?) denied his use, although it's available online (non-commercial distribution): https://alyankovic.wordpress.com/the-gaga-saga/ https://alyankovic.wordpress.com/the-gaga-saga/. Will he pass the four factors? He thinks so, but he still thinks it's a bit rude to not ask for permission.
  - ok_dad 4y ago
    Eventually, though, Lady Gaga herself approved that song. It was her manager that initially didn’t approve it (or at least her manager took the blame, heh).
MichaelCollins 4y ago
Prince was a well known prat, but this lawsuit is about what Andy Warhol did, not Prince. Prince's involvement in this case is only being the subject of the photograph. The lawsuit is between Lynn Goldsmith and Warhol's estate. The general hypocrisy / idiocy of Prince is completely irrelevant.
- bigmattystyles 4y ago
  I thought it was relevant and funny little anecdote
  - 4y ago

6stringmerc 4y ago

I am really, really tired of a large swath of journalists and intelligent people confusing the Fair Use concept whenever these cases come up. This, Goldiblox, and Blurred Lines are all headline cases where the defense was, in short, "you'll ruin art if this one case is found against the popular artist!" and that's it. No real legal footing to defend against the assertion the case in point is not fair use. The four factor test is clear. Plain English. Many folks don't bother to read it, so I suggest looking it up yourself and seeing it in the full context of the documentation. Warhol deserves to lose, I put the odds at 85% Warhol will lose, and I'm doing my best not to lose my sanity with so many misinformed or willfully ignorant (Mike Masnick) to argue feelings versus facts. There are many more good Fair Use cases than this one, and that should start out every discussion or essay. It gets clicks, I understand, but it's also a game of whack-a-mole for me, because it's so pervasive. I should've re-taken the LSAT and gotten that full ride to Pepperdine to pursue IP law...oh well...passion never dies. It's still relevant to my interests as a musician and creator. There are rules, Smokey...

bigmattystyles 4y ago
Did blurred lines argue fair use or did they claim they were different and just merely reminded of the Gaye song and the jury didn’t buy it?
danaris 4y ago
This shouldn't even be a case about Fair Use. Lynn Goldsmith sold the photograph, with full rights, to Vanity Fair, which then commissioned Warhol to make the Prince artwork out of it. Then, when Vanity Fair started doing stuff with it again in 2016, Goldsmith saw a chance to cash in, and sued...not Vanity Fair, no; the Warhol foundation, which guarantees a much higher-profile case, and presumably has more money. This should, by all sanity, be, a simple, cut and dried contract case: Did the sale of the photograph to Vanity Fair include the (transferable) right to make derivative works, or did it not? If the Supreme Court makes a ruling that affects Fair Use on this in any way, it's 100% because they wanted an excuse to do so. They have a very easy route to ruling on much narrower grounds, or kicking the case back to the lower courts.

nullc 4y ago

Doesn't actually contain any discussion of the warhol case for essentially all readers due to the paywall. Here is some coverage on techdirt instead: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/andy-warhol/ https://www.techdirt.com/tag/andy-warhol/