Originally published at: Supreme Court rules that The Warhol Foundation's use of Prince photo was copyright infringement | Boing Boing
…
4 Likes
It’s a shame the Plaintiff couldn’t have been Campbell’s instead, and that Warhol had not prevailed due to the social commentary angle. I agree with the dissent’s sentiment that fair use should be expanded, not contracted.
But it’s hard not to agree with the majority that the photographer should be compensated for her image, especially since Warhol only paid to use it once in the original publication, not to turn around and make a bunch of other works based on the same photograph that would in turn make him a bunch of additional income.
11 Likes
IMO, Warhol was the epitome of a mediocre White man succeeding because of his unearned privilege.
7 Likes
i don’t know beans about copyright law, but can someone please help me understand how this is different from the Shepard Fairey poster of Obama where he used someone else’s photo? didn’t Fairey win a similar suit?
2 Likes
Fair use on this front is a complex issue since often things we’d think would be protected as fair use really aren’t due to other factors. I’m going to have to dig into the court’s ruling to see how they define fair use since often it’s still murky despite many years of case law. I think @Melizmatic is right inasmuch as Warhol was benefiting from his position of power to be allowed to leverage his art and subsequent economic boons it provided whereas the photographer I have no idea what impact this had on them or their work. But I think it’s clear there needs to be more structured definitions of fair use and they should be applied strictly (both in terms of how companies improperly file DCMAs in such cases and trying to make artists who do want to use the works of others to actually collaborate with other artists and get their approval before just starting their project as a remix/rework of theirs).
4 Likes
But I don’t think the case hinged on this, did it?
If it were a less-known artist that took Warhol’s work and transformed it into her own distinctive style, would we be as quick to be happy if the Warhol estate won the case and squashed the smaller artist?
I did not say nor imply that it did.
I agree with the general idea of fair use, but in this instance I believe Justice Sotomayor had it right; Warhol was not making any social or artistic statement with his reproduction of the Prince photo; it was purely for commercial use and he failed to compensate the artist whose work he used.
There is no “WE” here, yo; you don’t even ever address me directly as a person.
3 Likes
He didn’t win, they settled out of court.
So - transformative art. Artists should have the freedom to collage and alter existing art.
But, when they do it directly from a photo, and it more or less is that photo, but stylized with color or shape choices, it is really hard for me to not see the photographer’s point of view that they should have some stake or credit into the work.
If Warhol took the pics and then reworked them, then that is fine.
But like this example with Prince or the above one mentioned with Obama, it is CLEARLY derivative of the original photo, which they did not take. The photographer, IMO, should have part ownership if it ends up being sold for profit in prints etc. Similar to music sampling.
I disagree things like the soup cans or boxes of detergent fall under the same category, how ever. Those are, more or less, still lifes, with the subject matter being consumer products.
Also agree that over all, IMO, Warhol is the most overrated of the artists from the Pop Art movement. I think his cult of personality has more to do with his success than his actual works. YMMV
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
