Photographer fires back in Supreme Court fight over Warhol works


The US Supreme Court is located in Washington State, USA, February 6, 2022.Reuters / Joshua Roberts

Sign up now for unlimited free access to

  • Photographers say the High Court should take over Artworld’s copyright proceedings
  • The Court of Appeals have found that Warhol’s Prince series is not exempt from copyright claims.

The above company and law firm names are automatically generated based on the text of the article. We are improving this feature to continue testing and development in beta.On the right side of the page[フィードバック]We welcome any feedback you can provide using the tabs.

(Reuters)-Photographer Lynn Goldsmith has asked the US Supreme Court to dismiss the Andy Warhol Foundation’s appeal in a dispute over the painting of Prince Warhol, whose work is her late Rockstar. Claims that he did not use his photographs fairly.

Goldsmith said in a brief on Friday that the Foundation’s warning about the impact of the incident on the world of art was unfounded, and Warhol’s Prince series wasn’t transformative enough to free his work from copyright claims. Stated.

Goldsmith filmed Prince at Newsweek in 1981. One of her photographs was licensed to Vanity Fair magazine, which commissioned Warhol for art in 1984.

Sign up now for unlimited free access to

Warhol later produced several silkscreen works that reproduced the photographs without the permission of Goldsmith. Goldsmith sued the Andy Warhol Foundation for copyright infringement in 2016.

Last March, the Second US Court of Appeals upheld goldsmiths and overturned the Manhattan Federal Court’s ruling that Warhol had fair-used photographs.

Fair use often depends on whether the new work is a transformation. Judge John Celtor District said Warhol’s work changed Prince’s portrayal of Prince as a “vulnerable” person to “a person larger than the real thing.”

However, on the second circuit, Warhol’s work turned out to be untransformative, as it had the same purpose as the work of visual arts depicting Prince.

The Andy Warhol Foundation called on the Supreme Court to review the ruling in December, arguing that it caused legal uncertainty in the artist, contrary to the Supreme Court’s case law, and caused a circuit split.

According to the Foundation, Warhol turned Goldsmith’s photo into a “symbolic piece of commentary on celebrities and consumerism.”

In her reply, Goldsmith distinguished the work of Prince Warhol from his iconic painting of Campbell’s Soup Can, which has been presented by some as a classic example of fair use.

“Unlike the maker’s soup cans that are eventually brought to the trash, Goldsmith’s original work here is itself an artistic portrait of an individual,” she insisted.

Goldsmith’s briefs also said the Foundation’s concerns about the negative effects of decisions on the world of art have been exaggerated.

“The sky isn’t far away and close to a fall,” she said.

Warhol Foundation lawyers declined to comment on this summary. Goldsmith’s lawyer did not immediately respond to the request for comment.

The case is Andy Warhol Foundation for the Arts v Goldsmith, US Supreme Court, Nos. 21-869.

For the Foundation: Latham & Watkins Roman Martinez and Andrew Gas

For Goldsmiths: Williams & Connolly’s Resabrat

read more:

2nd Circuit reverses Andy Warhol Foundation’s victory over Prince’s image

Sign up now for unlimited free access to

Our Standard: Thomson Reuters Principle of Trust.

Break Britain

A Washington-based correspondent covering intellectual property law proceedings, trends, and other developments such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. He has experience at Bloomberg Law and Thomson Reuters Practical Law and works as a lawyer.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here