[HN Gopher] The case litigating Andy Warhol's use of a photograp...
___________________________________________________________________
The case litigating Andy Warhol's use of a photograph of Prince
Author : Amorymeltzer
Score : 34 points
Date : 2022-10-25 14:05 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nybooks.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nybooks.com)
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| Prince himself used an image of Dave Chappelle disguised as
| Prince. Chappelle said this 'That's a Prince judo move right
| there. ... You make fun of Prince in a sketch and he'll just use
| you in his album cover. ... What am I going to do -- sue him for
| using a picture of me dressed up like him? ... That's checkmate
| right there.'
|
| Ironically though, I'd argue what Prince did here was not fair
| use.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast_Can_Wait
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Prince was a well known prat, but this lawsuit is about what
| Andy Warhol did, not Prince. Prince's involvement in this case
| is only being the subject of the photograph. The lawsuit is
| between Lynn Goldsmith and Warhol's estate. The general
| hypocrisy / idiocy of Prince is completely irrelevant.
| Maursault wrote:
| > The general hypocrisy / idiocy of Prince
|
| Strictly speaking, Prince featuring an image of Dave Chapelle
| in parody of him on the cover of a single is neither
| hypocrisy nor idiocy. It is fundamentally one of many
| examples of self-parody, which is common among artists. While
| judgement as idiocy is highly subjective, Prince obviously
| put thought into what is far more accurately described as
| clever, but I don't see how it could in any way be
| hypocritical.
| feet wrote:
| I personally think it's hilarious and wonderful, if I were
| Dave I wouldn't see any reason to sue. It's honestly a
| great move
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| I thought it was relevant and funny little anecdote
| briandrum wrote:
| That was obvious to me at least, and I appreciate that you
| shared it. Thanks!
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| It wasn't fair use in the least. It was up to Dave & probably
| Comedy Central and the bad press would've done damage - it was
| a great move from a marketing standpoint. Not that commercial
| nature is a block for proper fair use (see: Weird Al's album
| sales) but other arrangements are...less clear at first sight
| sometimes.
| zinekeller wrote:
| > (see: Weird Al's album sales)
|
| Unfortunately, that's a bad example, since Weird Al _always_
| gets permission from the original artists
| /songwriters/composers as may be the case. For example, he
| scrapped parodies based on Lady Gaga's songs because she (or
| the record company?) denied his use, although it's available
| online (non-commercial distribution):
| https://alyankovic.wordpress.com/the-gaga-saga/. Will he pass
| the four factors? He thinks so, but he still thinks it's a
| bit rude to not ask for permission.
| ok_dad wrote:
| Eventually, though, Lady Gaga herself approved that song.
| It was her manager that initially didn't approve it (or at
| least her manager took the blame, heh).
| rendall wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20221025140624/https://www.nyboo...
| fotta wrote:
| This still has a paywall, fyi
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| I am really, really tired of a large swath of journalists and
| intelligent people confusing the Fair Use concept whenever these
| cases come up. This, Goldiblox, and Blurred Lines are all
| headline cases where the defense was, in short, "you'll ruin art
| if this one case is found against the popular artist!" and that's
| it. No real legal footing to defend against the assertion the
| case in point is _not_ fair use. The four factor test is clear.
| Plain English. Many folks don 't bother to read it, so I suggest
| looking it up yourself and seeing it in the full context of the
| documentation.
|
| Warhol deserves to lose, I put the odds at 85% Warhol will lose,
| and I'm doing my best not to lose my sanity with so many
| misinformed or willfully ignorant (Mike Masnick) to argue
| feelings versus facts. There are many more good Fair Use cases
| than this one, and that should start out every discussion or
| essay. It gets clicks, I understand, but it's also a game of
| whack-a-mole for me, because it's so pervasive.
|
| I should've re-taken the LSAT and gotten that full ride to
| Pepperdine to pursue IP law...oh well...passion never dies. It's
| still relevant to my interests as a musician and creator. There
| are rules, Smokey...
| danaris wrote:
| This shouldn't even _be_ a case about Fair Use.
|
| Lynn Goldsmith _sold_ the photograph, with full rights, to
| Vanity Fair, which then _commissioned_ Warhol to make the
| Prince artwork out of it.
|
| Then, when Vanity Fair started doing stuff with it again in
| 2016, Goldsmith saw a chance to cash in, and sued...not Vanity
| Fair, no; the Warhol foundation, which guarantees a much
| higher-profile case, and presumably has more money.
|
| This should, by all sanity, be, a simple, cut and dried
| contract case: Did the sale of the photograph to Vanity Fair
| include the (transferable) right to make derivative works, or
| did it not?
|
| If the Supreme Court makes a ruling that affects Fair Use on
| this in any way, it's 100% because they wanted an excuse to do
| so. They have a _very_ easy route to ruling on much narrower
| grounds, or kicking the case back to the lower courts.
| mlyle wrote:
| > This should, by all sanity, be, a simple, cut and dried
| contract case: Did the sale of the photograph to Vanity Fair
| include the (transferable) right to make derivative works, or
| did it not?
|
| If it didn't, then the fair use argument and decision is
| important.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| Did blurred lines argue fair use or did they claim they were
| different and just merely reminded of the Gaye song and the
| jury didn't buy it?
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _A legal dispute that will test the limits of fair use_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33053286 - Oct 2022 (260
| comments)
|
| _Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?_
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26919044 - April 2021 (58
| comments)
| nullc wrote:
| Doesn't actually contain any discussion of the warhol case for
| essentially all readers due to the paywall.
|
| Here is some coverage on techdirt instead:
| https://www.techdirt.com/tag/andy-warhol/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-25 23:02 UTC)