Important Copyright Ruling to Photographers
May 19, 2023 14:10:04 #
The Short Story as I understand it is as follows.
Lynn Goldsmith took a photo, and sold a single use to Vanity. Vanity published it. Vanity then commissioned Andy Warhol to create a Prince series, using that photo. Later Lynn found out and asked Vanity for copyright fees. Vanity refused, feared a lawsuit and asked a court for a “fair use” ruling which would mean she could not claim damages. Lynn counter sued. Art is tricky stuff for the courts to sort out. Nevertheless this is an important case for all the stakeholders. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lynn. Personally I think The Supremes got it right.
Search for Andy Warhol Copyright to find multiple articles on the subject.
Post your thoughts here and let’s try to avoid getting too emotional, ok?
Lynn Goldsmith took a photo, and sold a single use to Vanity. Vanity published it. Vanity then commissioned Andy Warhol to create a Prince series, using that photo. Later Lynn found out and asked Vanity for copyright fees. Vanity refused, feared a lawsuit and asked a court for a “fair use” ruling which would mean she could not claim damages. Lynn counter sued. Art is tricky stuff for the courts to sort out. Nevertheless this is an important case for all the stakeholders. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lynn. Personally I think The Supremes got it right.
Search for Andy Warhol Copyright to find multiple articles on the subject.
Post your thoughts here and let’s try to avoid getting too emotional, ok?
May 19, 2023 14:39:14 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
I really don't know how I feel about this. I can see both sides of the arguments!
May 19, 2023 14:43:30 #
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
I have to side with SCOTUS on this one. The copyright holder sold a single use license for publication. Vanity exercised the license, then expanded on the use. Wikipedia presents the four tests to apply to determine whether fair use should apply. Vanity is a publication so producing a work for commercial use seems to me to be contrary to the fair use tests.
But, of course, I am not a lawyer, so my opinion has no legal standing. And clearly I did not study legal precedent, limiting my search to open sources.
I have to side with SCOTUS on this one. The copyright holder sold a single use license for publication. Vanity exercised the license, then expanded on the use. Wikipedia presents the four tests to apply to determine whether fair use should apply. Vanity is a publication so producing a work for commercial use seems to me to be contrary to the fair use tests.
But, of course, I am not a lawyer, so my opinion has no legal standing. And clearly I did not study legal precedent, limiting my search to open sources.
May 19, 2023 14:49:05 #
Just imagine if they'd paid to use the images, like they should have. The cost was nominal, the impact was substantial. Hopefully, everyone involved was 'retired'.
May 19, 2023 16:29:00 #
IIRC, Warhols estate is also being sued.
Since he was working for Vanity, should he have been expected to question the breadth of his employers usage license for an image that they had already used as their magazine cover image ?
Since he was working for Vanity, should he have been expected to question the breadth of his employers usage license for an image that they had already used as their magazine cover image ?
May 19, 2023 18:09:34 #
User ID wrote:
IIRC, Warhols estate is also being sued.
Since he was working for Vanity, should he have been expected to question the breadth of his employers usage license for an image that they had already used as their magazine cover image ?
Since he was working for Vanity, should he have been expected to question the breadth of his employers usage license for an image that they had already used as their magazine cover image ?
Yes, and should have gotten a use license for the continued use of the image.
May 19, 2023 18:29:48 #
JD750 wrote:
The Short Story as I understand it is as follows…..
I stumbled across the following book. It is well written and in easy to understand language.
The Copyright Zone: A Legal Guide For Photographers and Artists In The Digital Age
Book by Edward C. Greenberg and Jack Reznicki.
May 19, 2023 20:09:32 #
May 20, 2023 04:06:39 #
JD750 wrote:
The Short Story as I understand it is as follows. ... (show quote)
The ruling has very limited effect (narrow scope*)on most photographer and does not mean much according to analyst who looked at it.
Tempest in a teapot.
-------------
* The image was sold for a one time use (Vanity Fair)and then was reused for commercial purposes. That was a breach of contract, nothing else.
May 20, 2023 08:44:24 #
JD750 wrote:
The Short Story as I understand it is as follows. ... (show quote)
It is just recently that I came to see some discussion about including sculptures in pictures and how it could be seen as a copyright infringement.
May 20, 2023 08:53:09 #
wmurnahan wrote:
It is just recently that I came to see some discussion about including sculptures in pictures and how it could be seen as a copyright infringement.
I would think that photos of any artwork displayed in a public setting would not constitute copyright infringement. However, postprocessing to remove the artwork from the public setting might be a problem. Or a painting photographed in such a way to exclude the public setting.
May 20, 2023 09:01:34 #
JD750 wrote:
The Short Story as I understand it is as follows. ... (show quote)
I fully side with the court ruling.
As this can have big implications on fake AI photos that use another person's work.
May 20, 2023 09:04:10 #
MrMophoto
Loc: Rhode Island "The biggest little"
I also agree with SCOTUS, the Goldsmith photo was sold as a "single use", once Vanity published it, it has used up its single use and should have required an additional contract for any other use, by Vanity or anyone else.
As for photos of sculpture etc. in public places, its in a public place so no copyright infringement. Post processing to isolate the image is as Dirtfarmer points out might be a problem, depending on the final use.
As for photos of sculpture etc. in public places, its in a public place so no copyright infringement. Post processing to isolate the image is as Dirtfarmer points out might be a problem, depending on the final use.
May 20, 2023 09:11:36 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use br br I ha... (show quote)
Agreed. Not fair use; theft of intellectual property…
May 20, 2023 09:30:28 #
JD750 wrote:
The Short Story as I understand it is as follows. ... (show quote)
Justice is very slow. When was this case decided. Andy Warhol died in 1987!
Ironic considering the earlier Andy Warhol-Campbell's Soup suite!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.