Warhol and Lichtenstein 0

[Rick2you2]

The Supreme Court just decided that Warhol engaged in copyright infringement by using a published photo to which he made minor changes to create his art. According to a  New York Times article, the 7-2 decision majority opinion focused on the overlapping use of the original photograph and Warhol’s work. But, Campbell’s soup would be in a different category as it was used for commercial purposes.

So now we come to Lichtenstein and his famous panels. Infringement or not? I think not. 

[Terry E. Gibbs]

Recently back from the Andy Warhol museum. I am a huge fan of Lou Reed and had for many years been  trying to reconcile him with his time with Warhol.  Warhol was a superb self promoter. Musk and many others have taken lessons from him.

The Lichtenstein pop " art " I have only just looked into. Quite stunning that " his" sold for many thousands of dollars while the originals back then would have traded for less than a $50. Again all about, being the " must have / in thing" and self promotion.

Does Lichtenstein stuff  sell today for many multiples of what it sold for back then.  If it had moved with inflation it would be hitting around $1.5 to $2.0M.

And in my opinion it has to be copyright breach.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Terry E. Gibbs

[RBerman]

Lichtenstein was clearly putting the same image to a different purpose than the original image. The same could be said of Duchamp's urinal, or that recent guy who taped a banana to the wall and sold it for big bucks.

[delekkerste]

On 5/18/2023 at 7:03 PM, Rick2you2 said:

The Supreme Court just decided that Warhol engaged in copyright infringement by using a published photo to which he made minor changes to create his art. According to a  New York Times article, the 7-2 decision majority opinion focused on the overlapping use of the original photograph and Warhol’s work. But, Campbell’s soup would be in a different category as it was used for commercial purposes.

So now we come to Lichtenstein and his famous panels. Infringement or not? I think not. 

Echoing a recommendation from President Joe Biden's administration, the Supreme Court focused on the specific use that allegedly infringed Goldsmith's copyright - a license of Warhol's work to Conde Nast - and said it was not fair use because it served the same commercial purpose as Goldsmith's photo: to depict Prince in a magazine.

Andy Warhol Foundation President Joel Wachs said the foundation disagreed with the ruling but welcomed that it focused only on the Conde Nast license and did not "question the legality of Andy Warhol's creation of the Prince series."

Pretty clear that this was only very narrowly deemed to be infringement because it served the same commercial purpose as the original photo, whereas the series itself was deemed to be transformative enough to fall under Fair Use.  And both Kagan (L) and Roberts (R) dissented here, as did other attorneys and legal scholars. Even Sotomayor, who wrote the majority opinion, specifically distinguished this case from Warhol's other works ("The Soup Cans series uses Campbell's copyrighted work for an artistic commentary on consumerism, a purpose that is orthogonal to advertising soup" she said), choosing to construe the infringement very narrowly as opposed to the broad-ranging interpretation of the 2nd Circuit.

[John E.]

Greg Land is sweatin right now 

[comix4fun]

On 5/19/2023 at 8:48 AM, delekkerste said:

Echoing a recommendation from President Joe Biden's administration, the Supreme Court focused on the specific use that allegedly infringed Goldsmith's copyright - a license of Warhol's work to Conde Nast - and said it was not fair use because it served the same commercial purpose as Goldsmith's photo: to depict Prince in a magazine.

Andy Warhol Foundation President Joel Wachs said the foundation disagreed with the ruling but welcomed that it focused only on the Conde Nast license and did not "question the legality of Andy Warhol's creation of the Prince series."

Pretty clear that this was only very narrowly deemed to be infringement because it served the same commercial purpose as the original photo, whereas the series itself was deemed to be transformative enough to fall under Fair Use.  And both Kagan (L) and Roberts (R) dissented here, as did other attorneys and legal scholars. Even Sotomayor, who wrote the majority opinion, specifically distinguished this case from Warhol's other works ("The Soup Cans series uses Campbell's copyrighted work for an artistic commentary on consumerism, a purpose that is orthogonal to advertising soup" she said), choosing to construe the infringement very narrowly as opposed to the broad-ranging interpretation of the 2nd Circuit.

It reads more like a breach of contract under a license agreement decision. 

It's neither as "nothing to see here" as the Warhol Foundation would like to believe, nor as dire as the "ALL POP ARTISTS WILL PAY!!" faction would like to read it. 

It is however painting some bright lines (that should be paid attention to by creators everywhere) that anyone can't do anything with another's work as long as they call it "high art", especially if there are defined licenses in place. It really helped in this situation that the plaintiffs in this case had the means to pursue action to the highest court. The "well-funded plaintiff" has been missing in plenty of breach of IP agreement, infringement, misappropriation matters over the years and that's been mistaken for absence of tort...especially in the Art (capital "A") community. 

[John E.]

On 5/19/2023 at 10:46 AM, comix4fun said:It really helped in this situation that the plaintiffs in this case had the means to pursue action to the highest court. The "well-funded plaintiff" has been missing in plenty of breach of IP agreement, infringement, misappropriation matters over the years and that's been mistaken for absence of tort...especially in the Art (capital "A") community. 

Didn’t Shepard Fairy get into legal trouble for using a copyrighted photograph for the Obama Hope poster? I didn’t follow the case closely so I don’t know how it was resolved. Just wondering why it didn’t set a precedent of sort. 

[Dr. Balls]

Ehhh, nevermind.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Dr. Balls

[vodou]

He also lied to the court and deleted relevant files, which cost him his representation among other things. The coverup is always worse than the crime.