Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Analysis of Warhol Art Fair Use Ruling

By Robert W. Clarida and Robert J. Bernstein
October 01, 2019

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in a ruling during the summer by District Judge John J. Koetl, held that a series of silkscreen paintings and prints by Andy Warhol based on a photograph of music legend Prince taken by Lynn Goldsmith constituted a transformative fair use. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, 382 F.Supp. 3d 312 (S.D.N.Y.). In so holding, Judge Koetl relied on the 2013 Second Circuit decision holding that an "appropriation artist," Richard Prince (no relation to the musician Prince), made a transformative and fair use of photographs taken by Patrick Cariou. Cariou v Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013). Cariou has been criticized for its characterization of the changes made by Richard Prince as transformative, a criticism that Lynn Goldsmith no doubt will be making in her pending appeal of Judge Koetl's decision.

Goldsmith has long been recognized as a leading photographer of rock, jazz and r&b performers. In 1981, she took a number of studio photographs of musician Prince on assignment from Newsweek Magazine. In 1984, Goldsmith licensed Vanity Fair Magazine to use one of those photographs in an article for an artist's reference. Goldsmith's photography agency submitted the Goldsmith photograph to Vanity Fair, a Condé Nast publication, which in turn commissioned Andy Warhol to create an illustration of Prince for an article entitled "Purple Fame" that appeared in the November 1984 issue. Warhol used the photograph in creating a series of 16 works, comprised of 12 silkscreen paintings, two screen prints on paper, and two drawings (the Prince Series works). One of the Prince Series works appeared in the "Purple Fame" article, described as "a special portrait for Vanity Fair by ANDY WARHOL," along with a copyright reference as follows: "source photograph © 1984 by Lynn Goldsmith/LGI." After Warhol died in 1987, ownership of the Prince Series works passed from Warhol's etate to the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts (AWF). The Prince Series works have since been published widely and displayed in museums and other public places on numerous occasions pursuant to licenses from AWF.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.