Joe Gratz and Roman Swoopes discussed the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith that an Andy Warhol print derived from a photograph of the late musician Prince violated copyrights held by the original photographer, Lynn Goldsmith.
"The vigorous, spirited back-and-forth between Justice Sotomayor's majority opinion and Justice Kagan's dissent is a reminder of why we all care so much about copyright: because it forms the legal backdrop for creativity and culture," said Joe who authored an amicus curiae brief on behalf of law professors in the case.
"The opinion clarifies that the meaning of a new work, as reasonably can be perceived, should be considered in the fair use analysis," Joe said. "But the subjective intent of the creator of that new work doesn't matter."
Roman added, "The Court addressed the tension between case law holding that transformative uses might be fair and the definition of a derivative work under 17 U.S.C. § 101. The Court explained that to be protected by fair use, a secondary use must entail a greater degree of transformation than the amount required to qualify as a derivative work."
Read the full article (subscription may be required).
Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved
