3 ms·

I still find it very ironic that this is about a photograph of a different artist who is also now deceased. These are both riffing off Prince's image.

by gedy 3y ago

bitwize 3y ago
By posing for the photo, Prince was implicitly allowing his image to be used for that photo. Goldsmith got permission; Warhol didn't.
- gedy 3y ago
  I agree, but commenting on the "transformative" aspect. Warhol was much more transformative of Prince's face.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    To avoid copying all over the place: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35992109 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35992109 Transformative refers to how the work of art is used not produced.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Absent contracts and limitations to the contrary, at least in the US, once an image of you is out there, your rights are pretty limited unless it's used in either a commercial (esp. advertising) context or in a misleading/defamatory way. I know there are stronger protections in some of Europe although I'm not sure how effective those rules are in practice.
- freejazz 3y ago
  There is no issue with Prince's permission for this case... at all. Full stop.
  - bitwize 3y ago
    Goldsmith got implicit permission from Prince, so she's in the clear. Warhol didn't get permission from Goldsmith. Were Prince still alive, though, he might have made himself a plaintiff in this case -- we're talking about the man who had his lawyers send Weird Al Yankovic a threatening letter forbidding him from even looking at him.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      [flagged]
acomjean 3y ago
To be fair, the original image was a commissioned piece, where the photographer was paid for source material by the magazine who also paid for the Warhol image. (internet photo search not existing in the 1970s). Warhols estate sold another image to the magazine and didn't pay the photographer this time. $10,000 was mentioned which might not have paid for the case's legal fees. "The portrait of Prince was taken by Lynn Goldsmith, a successful rock photographer. In 1984, around the time Prince released “Purple Rain,” Vanity Fair hired Warhol to create a work to accompany an article titled “Purple Fame.” The magazine paid Ms. Goldsmith $400 to license the portrait as an “artist reference,” agreeing to credit her and to use it only in connection with a single issue." When I was photo editor in College we had some big name acts we got to shoot as they had justed opened our new arena. Typically you sign away your personal rights to the photos and you get a photo pass. Aerosmith, Metalica, lenny Kravitz, James Taylor all had this. Oddly Elton John did not and I got a furious phone call from the venue that one of my staff photographers was selling prints without permission (through the paper classified as was the style in the 90s). He hadn't signed anything and they gave him a photo pass... He hadn't sold any, so after some discussion he stopped. Cell phone cameras have changed the game alot. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/us/supreme-court-warhol-copyright.html?unlocked_article_code=TPg0cuhiZP1eMgdOG8P5syxrWCIWW6_sOSZeugrAbhVNlqY2qKkhpTOufaA1GLzhFcyRmw_cinqMHC-fTmisOBMJlUk9vuDPnXwqNenSQqk3Kvaic_eSPpIQzwMDRrFT6VAxCzu42VD8vQ4gNJXL8RhQQINF4jTMc_9VFVSFHaYQhDr66sHxXqBH7NfKSxks9CCuwf9o2Mrnmg3_5qmzDmUidkiJyJe1Q8rZqpj1AtXHZMp5rzk2p9zaCj9Gej9lZScQ3k6crLjKdCWGaysPGdHOnR-cFa0dv3ZOFRsRh9OQnGLQXeQfKAd2ovB_pDhIT1SbkSN27WJPH-pT6CEA9TUJoA&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/us/supreme-court-warhol-c...
- freejazz 3y ago
  Well it's not that they didn't pay this time... they did not have the right to use that work because the license for the Warhol works was for the one time initial use on the cover of the magazine. But that wasn't really the issue. The issue was whether or not the commercial use of the work for, essentially the same purpose (depicting Prince on the cover of a magazine) could be "transformative".

I still find it very ironic that this is about a photograph of a different artist who is also now deceased. These are both riffing off Prince's image.

by gedy 3y ago

I still find it very ironic that this is about a photograph of a different artist who is also now deceased. These are both riffing off Prince's image.

bitwize 3y ago

By posing for the photo, Prince was implicitly allowing his image to be used for that photo. Goldsmith got permission; Warhol didn't.

gedy 3y ago
I agree, but commenting on the "transformative" aspect. Warhol was much more transformative of Prince's face.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  To avoid copying all over the place: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35992109 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35992109 Transformative refers to how the work of art is used not produced.
ghaff 3y ago
Absent contracts and limitations to the contrary, at least in the US, once an image of you is out there, your rights are pretty limited unless it's used in either a commercial (esp. advertising) context or in a misleading/defamatory way. I know there are stronger protections in some of Europe although I'm not sure how effective those rules are in practice.
freejazz 3y ago
There is no issue with Prince's permission for this case... at all. Full stop.
- bitwize 3y ago
  Goldsmith got implicit permission from Prince, so she's in the clear. Warhol didn't get permission from Goldsmith. Were Prince still alive, though, he might have made himself a plaintiff in this case -- we're talking about the man who had his lawyers send Weird Al Yankovic a threatening letter forbidding him from even looking at him.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    [flagged]

acomjean 3y ago

To be fair, the original image was a commissioned piece, where the photographer was paid for source material by the magazine who also paid for the Warhol image. (internet photo search not existing in the 1970s). Warhols estate sold another image to the magazine and didn't pay the photographer this time. $10,000 was mentioned which might not have paid for the case's legal fees. "The portrait of Prince was taken by Lynn Goldsmith, a successful rock photographer. In 1984, around the time Prince released “Purple Rain,” Vanity Fair hired Warhol to create a work to accompany an article titled “Purple Fame.” The magazine paid Ms. Goldsmith $400 to license the portrait as an “artist reference,” agreeing to credit her and to use it only in connection with a single issue." When I was photo editor in College we had some big name acts we got to shoot as they had justed opened our new arena. Typically you sign away your personal rights to the photos and you get a photo pass. Aerosmith, Metalica, lenny Kravitz, James Taylor all had this. Oddly Elton John did not and I got a furious phone call from the venue that one of my staff photographers was selling prints without permission (through the paper classified as was the style in the 90s). He hadn't signed anything and they gave him a photo pass... He hadn't sold any, so after some discussion he stopped. Cell phone cameras have changed the game alot. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/us/supreme-court-warhol-copyright.html?unlocked_article_code=TPg0cuhiZP1eMgdOG8P5syxrWCIWW6_sOSZeugrAbhVNlqY2qKkhpTOufaA1GLzhFcyRmw_cinqMHC-fTmisOBMJlUk9vuDPnXwqNenSQqk3Kvaic_eSPpIQzwMDRrFT6VAxCzu42VD8vQ4gNJXL8RhQQINF4jTMc_9VFVSFHaYQhDr66sHxXqBH7NfKSxks9CCuwf9o2Mrnmg3_5qmzDmUidkiJyJe1Q8rZqpj1AtXHZMp5rzk2p9zaCj9Gej9lZScQ3k6crLjKdCWGaysPGdHOnR-cFa0dv3ZOFRsRh9OQnGLQXeQfKAd2ovB_pDhIT1SbkSN27WJPH-pT6CEA9TUJoA&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/us/supreme-court-warhol-c...

freejazz 3y ago
Well it's not that they didn't pay this time... they did not have the right to use that work because the license for the Warhol works was for the one time initial use on the cover of the magazine. But that wasn't really the issue. The issue was whether or not the commercial use of the work for, essentially the same purpose (depicting Prince on the cover of a magazine) could be "transformative".