Pryor Cashman Partner Megan Noh, co-chair of the Art Law Group and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) Practice, spoke with Law360 and Reuters following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Lynn Goldsmith, et al., in which the Court examined the copyright issues underlying fair use by artists.
In "Kagan Rips Sotomayor's 'I Could Paint That' Warhol Opinion," which appeared in Law360, Megan discusses the potential impact of the ruling:
To Megan E. Noh, a partner at Pryor Cashman LLP who co-chairs her firm's art law practice, the majority's opinion is "quite narrow," and "does not seem to signal a radical shift in prior fair use analyses of ... more characteristically 'non-commercial' uses," she told Law360.
In the Reuters article, "US Supreme Court's Andy Warhol decision keeps 'fair use' questions alive," Megan expressed concern about the lack of clarity and specific direction in the decision:
"It's very difficult to understand how this ruling changes the fair use analysis with respect to the creation and sale of original art works employing appropriative practices," said Megan Noh, co-chair of the art law practice at Pryor Cashman. "It doesn't provide the clearer guideposts that attorneys representing visual artists, galleries, and collectors were hoping for."
Read the full articles using the links below (subscription may be required).
Resources
- [Law360] Kagan Rips Sotomayor's 'I Could Paint That' Warhol Opinion
- [Reuters] US Supreme Court's Andy Warhol decision keeps 'fair use' questions alive
Originally published by Law360; Reuters.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
