5 ms·
It's a derivative work. Is it legal, as a transformative use? Probably not. Andy Warhol's estate just lost a fair use case in the U.S. Supreme Court.
by orra 3y ago
It's a derivative work.
Is it legal, as a transformative use? Probably not. Andy Warhol's estate just lost a fair use case in the U.S. Supreme Court.
- gowld 3y agoWhy not? Do you think anyone is going to say, "wow, I can save $3 by watching this crappy monochrome silent sketched copy of the movie!" ??? https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/may/18/andy-warhol-copyright-prince-paintings-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/may/18/andy-wa... Warhol copied a portrait. Totally different issue. "The supreme court [lol @ Anti-American Grauniad] focused on the specific use that allegedly infringed Goldsmith’s copyright – a license of Warhol’s work to Condé Nast – and said it was not transformative because it served the same commercial purpose as Goldsmith’s photo: to depict Prince in a magazine."
- orra 3y ago> The supreme court [lol @ Anti-American Grauniad] It is nonsense to claim the Guardian is anti American because their style guide eschews capitalisation. They also refer to the “UK supreme court” and to “the king” without excess capitalisation.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]