5 ms·

> indeed, they did just that yesterday with Warhol v Goldsmith I would not argue at all that is what they did. There are remarkably few statutes about fair use

> indeed, they did just that yesterday with Warhol v Goldsmith I would not argue at all that is what they did. There are remarkably few statutes about fair use specifically and as a doctrine it is a loose patchwork of precedence and principles. If legislatures were to pass actual legislation for them to interpret that would be a different thing.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> I would not argue at all that is what they did. There are remarkably few statutes about fair use specifically and as a doctrine it is a loose patchwork of precedence and principles. Its worth noting that the reason the fair use statutory language is the way it is is that it was largely a codification of the thn-existing case law on Fair Use as a Constitutional (stemming from the First Amendment) limit on the copyright power. > If legislatures were to pass actual legislation for them to interpret that would be a different thing. Congress isn’t really interested in expanding Fair Use beyond the Constitutional minimum, though.
- ghaff 3y ago
  This seemed to be a reasonable decision. The Obama Hope poster case was settled out of court but seems very similar. And the original image had been licensed previously. Some of the dissenting opinion in these cases seems to be partly on the grounds of this is Andy Warhol (or Roy Lichtenstein, etc.) we're talking about here so their work is obviously important and transformational--in a way that my applying some Photoshop filters clearly isn't.
  - legitster 3y ago
    The precedent the Supreme Court actually set here is somewhat interesting. If the work had been used to advertise a magazine issue about Andy Warhol, there may have been grounds for fair use. But because it was an issue about Prince, stealing another artists' work and slapping colors on it doesn't excuse you for not crediting them.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    The decision reached the right outcome (overall, the use was not fair) for really the wrong reason. What the decision probably should have done was to rule that what Andy Warhol did was transformative, and therefore the first factor favors fair use, but wasn't transformative enough to be overall fair use, as the other factors (in particular, the fourth factor) weighed against fair use far more strongly than the first factor weighed in favor. However, the court essentially boxed itself into weighing in only one the meaning of factor one, so it tries to reach the decision by half-importing factor four (the degree to which it substitutes the original) into factor one analysis. Furthermore, it ties itself into a knot to argue why Andy Warhol's use in the original prints was transformative and overall fair use, but the use in the newspaper article wasn't transformative. The dissent manages to be even worse by, as you point out, essentially arguing that everything Andy Warhol does deserves to be fair use because it's Andy Warhol. Oh, and taking as many potshots at the majority opinion as is possible. As bad as the majority opinion was, the dissent is even worse.
    - klyrs 3y ago
      > The dissent manages to be even worse by, as you point out, essentially arguing that everything Andy Warhol does deserves to be fair use because it's Andy Warhol. That's not how I read it. The gist I took was that Andy Warhol deserves fair use because the art establishment has consistently viewed his works, the Prince piece included, as revolutionary. And to state the bloody obvious, if his work was not transformative, it never would have been seen as revolutionary.
      - gvedem 3y ago
        >>to state the bloody obvious, if his work was not transformative, it never would have been seen as revolutionary. that is not at all obvious to me--what is revolutionary in Warhol is not the art but the way people see it, like found art. but if you "found" the art in someone else's comic, and aren't substantially changing the actual image--the actual appearance of the work, the only part that could reasonably be described as being ripped off from someone else... it can be revolutionary without having meaningfully transformed the original, just the way people see it. disclaimer: I don't have a lot of time for that kind of art, which no doubt biases me.
atoav 3y ago
Some members of the supreme court need an explaination and explicit guidance in order to file forms for transactions, which in most countries on earth would constitute undefendable levels of corruption. I think it is quite optimistic, if not even downright naive to assume the text matters at all for such protagonists. If they were concerned about such things they would hold themselves to higher ethical standards than other courts, not lower ones. If my countries supreme court behaved that way, I would expect weeks of protest till the court takes care of that. I am not an US citizen, but the looking at the way the SCOTUS has both been conducting itself I am very worried about the state of democracy in the US. To someone outside the US it is already stunning that you can elect governments or political leaders that have the minority of the vote, but them then filling three live time supreme court positions? Who thought that was a good system? They must have smoked the bad stuff.
- politician 3y ago
  In response to the prompt, "Given the comment, please characterize the author's implicit bias in a single sentence:" > The author appears to have an implicit bias against the US Supreme Court, its ethical standards, and the overall American democratic system, particularly in terms of the process for electing government officials and lifetime Supreme Court justices. That seems pretty good. I should turn this into a browser widget.
  - GeneralMayhem 3y ago
    Opinion != bias. If parent had said "I think this action was wrong because SCOTUS is corrupt/wrong", then sure. But reading "I think SCOTUS is corrupt/wrong because they've taken these actions" and from that concluding that the author dislikes SCOTUS isn't insight or a gotcha, it's just basic literal reading comprehension.
  - atoav 3y ago
    Congratulations, you figured out that as a friend of free societies I am "biased" against small groups of inacountable and people that excert power of powpulations that cannot vote them out of office without a bloody revolution. This has been a bias I have worked to keep alive despite having been born into a life where I would be fine without cultivating it. Calling this a "bias" isn't the flex you think it is and probably tells more about your own world view than about mine.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I would not argue at all that is what they did. There are remarkably few statutes about fair use specifically and as a doctrine it is a loose patchwork of precedence and principles. Its worth noting that the reason the fair use statutory language is the way it is is that it was largely a codification of the thn-existing case law on Fair Use as a Constitutional (stemming from the First Amendment) limit on the copyright power. > If legislatures were to pass actual legislation for them to interpret that would be a different thing. Congress isn’t really interested in expanding Fair Use beyond the Constitutional minimum, though.

ghaff 3y ago
This seemed to be a reasonable decision. The Obama Hope poster case was settled out of court but seems very similar. And the original image had been licensed previously. Some of the dissenting opinion in these cases seems to be partly on the grounds of this is Andy Warhol (or Roy Lichtenstein, etc.) we're talking about here so their work is obviously important and transformational--in a way that my applying some Photoshop filters clearly isn't.
- legitster 3y ago
  The precedent the Supreme Court actually set here is somewhat interesting. If the work had been used to advertise a magazine issue about Andy Warhol, there may have been grounds for fair use. But because it was an issue about Prince, stealing another artists' work and slapping colors on it doesn't excuse you for not crediting them.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  The decision reached the right outcome (overall, the use was not fair) for really the wrong reason. What the decision probably should have done was to rule that what Andy Warhol did was transformative, and therefore the first factor favors fair use, but wasn't transformative enough to be overall fair use, as the other factors (in particular, the fourth factor) weighed against fair use far more strongly than the first factor weighed in favor. However, the court essentially boxed itself into weighing in only one the meaning of factor one, so it tries to reach the decision by half-importing factor four (the degree to which it substitutes the original) into factor one analysis. Furthermore, it ties itself into a knot to argue why Andy Warhol's use in the original prints was transformative and overall fair use, but the use in the newspaper article wasn't transformative. The dissent manages to be even worse by, as you point out, essentially arguing that everything Andy Warhol does deserves to be fair use because it's Andy Warhol. Oh, and taking as many potshots at the majority opinion as is possible. As bad as the majority opinion was, the dissent is even worse.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    > The dissent manages to be even worse by, as you point out, essentially arguing that everything Andy Warhol does deserves to be fair use because it's Andy Warhol. That's not how I read it. The gist I took was that Andy Warhol deserves fair use because the art establishment has consistently viewed his works, the Prince piece included, as revolutionary. And to state the bloody obvious, if his work was not transformative, it never would have been seen as revolutionary.
    - gvedem 3y ago
      >>to state the bloody obvious, if his work was not transformative, it never would have been seen as revolutionary. that is not at all obvious to me--what is revolutionary in Warhol is not the art but the way people see it, like found art. but if you "found" the art in someone else's comic, and aren't substantially changing the actual image--the actual appearance of the work, the only part that could reasonably be described as being ripped off from someone else... it can be revolutionary without having meaningfully transformed the original, just the way people see it. disclaimer: I don't have a lot of time for that kind of art, which no doubt biases me.

atoav 3y ago

Some members of the supreme court need an explaination and explicit guidance in order to file forms for transactions, which in most countries on earth would constitute undefendable levels of corruption. I think it is quite optimistic, if not even downright naive to assume the text matters at all for such protagonists. If they were concerned about such things they would hold themselves to higher ethical standards than other courts, not lower ones. If my countries supreme court behaved that way, I would expect weeks of protest till the court takes care of that. I am not an US citizen, but the looking at the way the SCOTUS has both been conducting itself I am very worried about the state of democracy in the US. To someone outside the US it is already stunning that you can elect governments or political leaders that have the minority of the vote, but them then filling three live time supreme court positions? Who thought that was a good system? They must have smoked the bad stuff.

politician 3y ago
In response to the prompt, "Given the comment, please characterize the author's implicit bias in a single sentence:" > The author appears to have an implicit bias against the US Supreme Court, its ethical standards, and the overall American democratic system, particularly in terms of the process for electing government officials and lifetime Supreme Court justices. That seems pretty good. I should turn this into a browser widget.
- GeneralMayhem 3y ago
  Opinion != bias. If parent had said "I think this action was wrong because SCOTUS is corrupt/wrong", then sure. But reading "I think SCOTUS is corrupt/wrong because they've taken these actions" and from that concluding that the author dislikes SCOTUS isn't insight or a gotcha, it's just basic literal reading comprehension.
- atoav 3y ago
  Congratulations, you figured out that as a friend of free societies I am "biased" against small groups of inacountable and people that excert power of powpulations that cannot vote them out of office without a bloody revolution. This has been a bias I have worked to keep alive despite having been born into a life where I would be fine without cultivating it. Calling this a "bias" isn't the flex you think it is and probably tells more about your own world view than about mine.