Entertainment Law Resources
​
  • HOME
  • LAW PRACTICE
    • Mark Litwak
    • Glenn Litwak
    • Pete Wilke
  • ARTICLES & VIDEO CLIPS
    • Video & Audio Clips
  • STORE
  • RESOURCES
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT
  • FAQ
  • SITE MAP
  • CREATIVE ACCOUNTING REVISITED
  • CREATIVE ACCOUNTING REVISITED
  • New Page

SUPREME COURT RESTRICTS FAIR USE DOCTRINE ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR THE VISUAL ARTS, INC. v. GOLDSMITH

5/25/2023

 
In the past few decades, various decisions of the Supreme Court expanded the fair use doctrine which is a defense  to copyright infringement claims. Under the fair use doctrine, creators can borrow from  existing copyrighted works in creating their own transformative works without permission of the owner of the original works. For example, in  Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.[1] the owner of Roy Orbison's 1960's hit "Oh, Pretty Woman" sued the rap group 2 Live Crew over its unauthorized rap version of its song that they called "Big Hairy Woman."   2 Live Crew argued that its song was a parody mocking the banality of the original song and should be a fair use. A unanimous Supreme Court  reversed the lower court’s  decision, which had held that the rap song was a commercial use and not a fair use.

The Campbell  Supreme Court opinion examined the fourth statutory fair use factor, namely, the effect of the subsequent use on the original's potential market and found that this factor was limited to realistic potential markets. The court explained that it was unlikely that the copyright owners of "Oh, Pretty Woman" would have released a parody rap version of their own  song, and therefore the fourth fair use factor favored  the defendants. Thus,  the Court interpreted the fourth factor in a manner that favors  a fair use.

As a reminder, the  four factors to determine fair use are:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

However, last week the Supreme Court appeared to go in the opposite  direction by restricting the fair use defense in its decision of  Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. In  1984 Vanity Fair magazine wanted to license one of Lynn Goldsmith’s photographs of  the musician Prince to  illustrate a story about him. Goldsmith agreed on the condition that the use of her photo be a “one time use.” Vanity Fair then hired Andy Warhol  to make a silkscreen based on Goldsmith’s photo, and then published this  image with  its  article about Prince.

Without Goldsmith’s knowledge, Warhol  also created 15 additional works based on her photograph,  one of which is  orange and called  “Orange Prince.” After Prince died in 2016,  the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. (AWF) licensed Orange Prince  to Condé Nast, for the purpose of illustrating a special magazine titled “The Genius of Prince.” AWF was paid  $10,000 while  Goldsmith received nothing. After  Goldsmith informed AWF that she believed its use of her photograph infringed her copyright, AWF sued her for a declaratory judgment asking the court to find that that their use was not a fair use, which would not require a license. Goldsmith counterclaimed for copyright infringement.

The court found that the “purpose and character” of AWF’s use of Goldsmith’s photograph in commercially licensing the work  to Condé Nast did  not favor AWF’s fair use defense. The court stated:

As portraits of Prince used to depict Prince in magazine stories about Prince, the original photograph and AWF’s copying use of it share substantially the same purpose. Moreover, AWF’s use is of a commercial nature. Even though Orange Prince adds new expression to Goldsmith’s photograph, in the context of the challenged use, the first fair use factor still favors Goldsmith…In sum, if an original work and secondary use share the same or highly similar purposes, and the secondary use is commercial, the first fair use factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying.

Justice Kagan and the Chief Justice issued a strong dissent stating that the majority opinion was not a continuation of existing copyright law and  failed to acknowledge the importance of transformative copying. Citing the prior Campbell case, she argued that the first factor should concern whether the new work is transformative or not. “The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.”

Justice Kagan noted:

All of Warhol’s artistry and social commentary is negated by one thing: Warhol licensed his portrait to a magazine, and Goldsmith sometimes licensed her photos to magazines too. That is the sum and substance of the majority opinion. Over and over, the majority incants that “[b]oth [works] are portraits of Prince used in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince”; they therefore both “share substantially the same purpose”—meaning, a commercial one.

Of course, “Big Hairy Woman”  and "Oh, Pretty Woman" are both songs that share the same purpose. This latest Supreme Court decision muddies the landscape and will make it more difficult to predict which uses are fair and which are not. Read the decision.
 
[1] 114 S. Ct. 1164 (1994)

    Archives

    February 2025
    December 2024
    September 2024
    July 2024
    April 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    November 2022
    September 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    March 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    December 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    August 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    February 2012
    December 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    April 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    February 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    January 2009

    Disclaimer: The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.
    For older posts, please visit The Litwak Blog.
    Join our Email Newsletter list
    Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon
    For Email Newsletters you can trust
Picture
Home
Law Practice
Store
Articles & Video Clips
Resources

Blog

Contact
FAQ
Site Map

LAW OFFICES OF
MARK LITWAK & ASSOCIATES

201 Santa Monica Blvd.
Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401
Phone: 310-859-9595
[email protected]


Follow us on
Join our Email Newsletter list
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon
For Email Newsletters you can trust
Copyright  2013-2025, Mark Litwak. All Rights Reserved.│ Legal Disclaimer │ Terms of Use & Copyright    │  Privacy Policy