- Title: Supreme Court tackles Andy Warhol copyright dispute over Prince paintings
- Date: 12th October 2022
- Summary: DULLES AIRPORT, VIRGINIA, UNITED STATES (OCTOBER 12, 2022) (REUTERS) (SOUNDBITE) (English) MICKEY H. OSTERREICHER GENERAL COUNSEL NATIONAL PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION (NPPA) (NPPA FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ARGUING WARHOL’S USE OF PRINCE PHOTO WAS NOT ‘FAIR USE’), SAYING: "That if the Supreme Court were to decide in favor of the Warhol Foundation based on their argument that's exactly what would be happening, that that photographers in particular, because unlike a book, where somebody might take a sentence or a paragraph or a few pages, most times the photograph is taken in its entirety. And so here you have an entire picture being taken by someone else, used in a way that the art, the photographer is not getting a licensing fee." WHITE FLASH CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED STATES (OCTOBER 12, 2022) (REUTERS) (SOUNDBITE) (English) HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR, REBECCA TUSHNET, WHO WROTE A BRIEF SUPPORTING THE WARHOL FOUNDATION WITH OTHER COPYRIGHT SCHOLARS, SAYING: "So I filed a brief supporting the Warhol Foundation, basically to make the point that there's no way to figure out whether use is fair without asking, 'Well, what kind of use is it? What what does its meaning consist of in this particular situation? So is it a book review? Is it a parody? Is it some other kind of commentary? Is it a biography?' All those things are important to whether something is fair use and you need to ask what kind of work you have. That is, what is it doing in the world? You don't have to ask about its quality, but you do have to ask about its meaning to figure out what a fair use is."
- Embargoed: 27th October 2022 00:07
- Keywords: Andy Warhol Clarence Thomas Elena Kagan Prince SCOTUS Supreme Court Warhol copyright
- Location: VARIOUS
- City: VARIOUS
- Country: US
- Topics: Art,Arts/Culture/Entertainment,United States
- Reuters ID: LVA007188012102022RP1
- Aspect Ratio: 16:9
- Story Text: In lively arguments that touched on the meaning of art and referenced famous films, TV shows and paintings, U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday (October 12) grappled with a copyright dispute between a photographer and Andy Warhol's estate over the acclaimed artist's paintings of rock star Prince.
The court heard about two hours of arguments in a case that could help map the boundaries for artistic works that draw upon other material.
Harvard Law professor Rebecca Tushnet, who wrote a brief supporting Warhol's estate with other copyright scholars said the high court's take on the case was very hard to predict.
"It's really hard to tell, especially with the Supreme Court the way it is right now," she told Reuters after listening to the arguments.
The Andy Warhol Foundation appealed a lower court's ruling that his 1984 paintings - based on a 1981 photo of Prince that celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith shot for Newsweek magazine - were not protected by a copyright law doctrine called fair use that allows certain unlicensed use of copyright-protected works.
Justice Clarence Thomas noted that he was a Prince fan in the 1980s.
"No longer?" Justice Kagan interjected mischievously.
"Well, only on Thursday night," Thomas responded to laughter from some attending the hearing.
"But let's say that I'm also a Syracuse (Orange) fan and I decide to make one of those big blowup posters of (Warhol's) 'Orange Prince,'" and "put 'Go Orange' underneath. Would you sue me?" Thomas asked the estate's lawyer Roman Martinez.
Warhol, who died in 1987, was a central figure in the pop art movement that arose in the 1950s. Warhol often created silkscreen print paintings and other works inspired by photos of celebrities including Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley as well as consumer products, work with considerable artistic and monetary value.
He made 14 silkscreen prints and two pencil illustrations inspired by Goldsmith's photograph.
(Production: Temis Tormo) - Copyright Holder: REUTERS
- Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2022. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
- Usage Terms/Restrictions: None