Now the Supreme Court must produce the proper test that protects artist’s rights to monetize their work, but also encourages new art. But an appeals court reversed – ruling that a new meaning or message is not enough to qualify for fair use. In the case at hand, a district court ruled in favor of Warhol, basing its decision on the fact that the two works in question had a different meaning and message. Several justices worried about how their eventual opinion would impact book-to-movie adaptations, motion pictures and TV sequels.Ĭentral to the case is whether the late Andy Warhol infringed on a photographer’s copyright when he created a series of silkscreens of the musician Prince.Īt issue is the so called “fair use” doctrine in copyright law that permits the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Probing each side for over an hour, the justices attempted to determine when a new work based on a prior piece is substantially transformative, and when it simply amounts a copycat version of an existing work subject to copyright rules. Warhol silkscreens of Prince, from Supreme Court filings Supreme Court
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |