larryepage wrote:
Readers may want to do some further research into this case before commenting. The original image was licensed to Newsweek, not Vanity Fair. VF did get a license for their subsequent use, but from the estate of Andy Warhol for a silkscreen image from his series of paintings, not the original photograph.
I'm not a copyright expert any more than the rest of us, but the Kagan/Roberts dissent may be more "right" than the majority opinion when viewed in the light of "the real whole story."
Readers may want to do some further research into ... (
show quote)
The issue is not black or white. As I understand it, Copyright Law allows for "transformations". That is, an image (photo or painting) can be copied and transformed (pixilated, altered, distorted etc) and Copyright may no longer apply. Apparently Warhol thought his transformation was sufficient to avoid a copyright infringement. The court didn't think so. Another time and another court may think differently.