{"id":820,"date":"2023-06-02T10:29:22","date_gmt":"2023-06-02T14:29:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/?p=820"},"modified":"2023-06-02T10:47:43","modified_gmt":"2023-06-02T14:47:43","slug":"fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Fraud or Art? Supreme Court Provides Copyright Clarity in Warhol Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

The US Supreme Court recently handed down their long-awaited decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith<\/em>, providing much-needed clarity on the boundaries of fair use in copyright. Fair use limits the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, so that it is not an infringement to copy, perform, transmit, distribute copies, or display a copyrighted work under certain circumstances.<\/p>\n

Fair use is not well defined in the statute<\/a>, but four factors are set out:<\/p>\n

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;<\/p>\n

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;<\/p>\n

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and<\/p>\n

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.<\/p>\n

Historically, discussion of fair use has focused on the first factor, mostly in trying to assess what besides \u201ca commercial nature\u201d and \u201cnonprofit educational purposes\u201d determine the \u201cpurpose and character of the use.\u201d Key to the character of the use is the question of whether it is \u201ctransformative\u201d \u2013 whether it is so different from the original work in content and purpose that it has virtually become something else. Like many other cases, Warhol v. Goldsmith<\/em> was determined, in the lower courts, based on \u201ctransformativity.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Case<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1981, rock artist photographer Lynn Goldsmith took a photograph of the artist Prince. In 1984, Andy Warhol, on behalf of Vanity Fair and with a license from Goldsmith, made a silkscreen version of the photograph that Vanity Fair used as a magazine cover. At the time, Warhol also made a series of other works based on the photograph. When Prince died 30 years later, Vanity Fair licensed one of those other images from Warhol\u2019s heir, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, which it used to illustrate an article about Prince, without paying or crediting Goldsmith.<\/p>\n

The Foundation\u2019s defense to a claim of infringement has been that the use was \u201ctransformative\u201d in purpose and character and therefore protected by fair use. The District Court agreed with the Foundation<\/a>, stating that Warhol\u2019s works, when viewed side-by-side with the original photograph, \u201chave a different character, give Goldsmith\u2019s photograph a new expression, and employ new aesthetics with creative and communicative results distinct from Goldsmith\u2019s.\u201d The District Court then found that the transformative character of Warhol\u2019s works outweighed all the other three fair use factors. However, the Second Circuit disagreed, finding that the works were not transformative, just being a change in style but still recognizably the same depiction of the same person, without significant new expression.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court held that both lower courts\u2019 approaches were wrong \u2013 the question of the first factor is not merely whether a work is transformative at all, but the degree of transformativity and new creativity must be balanced against other elements of the purpose and character of the use, such as whether it is commercial and whether it shares a purpose with the original work. Ultimately, the Supreme Court restated the question of \u201cwhether the use \u2026 has a further purpose or different character, which is a matter of degree, and the degree of difference must be balanced against the commercial nature of the use.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Rule<\/strong><\/p>\n

While the Supreme Court\u2019s decision adds some complexity to the first fair use factor, it also adds significant clarity to the questions of what constitutes a transformative use and whether a transformative use is necessarily a fair use. Most importantly, it clarifies that a creator who adds their own creativity to a use of another\u2019s work for commentary or non-commercial purposes is likely protected by fair use. When the standard of new creativity and a changed purpose is applied to a commercial use, particularly a competing use, a fair-use is much higher.<\/p>\n

Trademarks<\/strong><\/p>\n

This decision may also shed light on the still-awaited decision in VIP Products v. Jack Daniel\u2019s<\/em>, <\/strong>often known as the \u201cBad Spaniels\u201d case. While trademark fair use is not enshrined in statute with the four factors of copyright fair use, the balancing of the degree of creativity and changed purpose against the commercial nature of the use could be similarly applied in that case, where a dog toy manufacturer created and sold a chew-toy aping a Jack Daniel\u2019s bottle. If so, that case may come down to the Justices\u2019 assessment of the creativity and thought needed to come up with \u201cBad Spaniels\u201d from \u201cJack Daniels.\u201d<\/p>\n

Clarifying fair use boundaries and emphasizing the degree of \u201ctransformativity\u201d is crucial for the future of copyright cases. If you are interested in this topic, or any other aspects of copyright or trademark matters, please feel free to contact me<\/a> at dsiegel@norris-law.com<\/a> or the intellectual property attorneys<\/a> at\u00a0Norris McLaughlin<\/a>\u00a0about disputes over intellectual property.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The US Supreme Court recently handed down their long-awaited decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, providing much-needed clarity on the boundaries of fair use in copyright. Fair use limits the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, so that it is not an infringement to copy, perform, transmit, distribute copies, or […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":173,"featured_media":821,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[405,325,315,27],"tags":[],"coauthors":[476],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nFraud or Art? Supreme Court Provides Copyright Clarity in Warhol Case - More Than Your Mark\u00ae<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Fraud or Art? Supreme Court Provides Copyright Clarity in Warhol Case\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The US Supreme Court recently handed down their long-awaited decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, providing much-needed clarity on the boundaries of fair use in copyright. Fair use limits the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, so that it is not an infringement to copy, perform, transmit, distribute copies, or […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"More Than Your Mark\u00ae\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-06-02T14:29:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-06-02T14:47:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2023\/06\/Copy-of-More-Than-Your-Mark\u00ae-04.07.png?_t=1685717264\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1280\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"720\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"David H. Siegel\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"David H. Siegel\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/\",\"name\":\"Fraud or Art? Supreme Court Provides Copyright Clarity in Warhol Case - More Than Your Mark\u00ae\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-06-02T14:29:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-06-02T14:47:43+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#\/schema\/person\/7b31543db76842441dc2676879942a0b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Fraud or Art? Supreme Court Provides Copyright Clarity in Warhol Case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/\",\"name\":\"More Than Your Mark\u00ae\",\"description\":\"Trademark, Copyright, and Unfair Competition Law Blog\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#\/schema\/person\/7b31543db76842441dc2676879942a0b\",\"name\":\"David H. Siegel\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/686ed842e3520575a6050ccb719960ec\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a22d14310137f2bb15569335acac46c7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a22d14310137f2bb15569335acac46c7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"David H. Siegel\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/wordpress-599075-1937274.cloudwaysapps.com\/attorney_profiles\/david-h-siegel\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/author\/dsiegel\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Fraud or Art? Supreme Court Provides Copyright Clarity in Warhol Case - More Than Your Mark\u00ae","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Fraud or Art? Supreme Court Provides Copyright Clarity in Warhol Case","og_description":"The US Supreme Court recently handed down their long-awaited decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, providing much-needed clarity on the boundaries of fair use in copyright. Fair use limits the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, so that it is not an infringement to copy, perform, transmit, distribute copies, or […]","og_url":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/","og_site_name":"More Than Your Mark\u00ae","article_published_time":"2023-06-02T14:29:22+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-06-02T14:47:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1280,"height":720,"url":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2023\/06\/Copy-of-More-Than-Your-Mark\u00ae-04.07.png?_t=1685717264","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"David H. Siegel","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"David H. Siegel","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/","url":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/","name":"Fraud or Art? Supreme Court Provides Copyright Clarity in Warhol Case - More Than Your Mark\u00ae","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-06-02T14:29:22+00:00","dateModified":"2023-06-02T14:47:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#\/schema\/person\/7b31543db76842441dc2676879942a0b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/trademark-infringement\/fraud-or-art-supreme-court-provides-copyright-clarity-in-warhol-case\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Fraud or Art? Supreme Court Provides Copyright Clarity in Warhol Case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#website","url":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/","name":"More Than Your Mark\u00ae","description":"Trademark, Copyright, and Unfair Competition Law Blog","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#\/schema\/person\/7b31543db76842441dc2676879942a0b","name":"David H. Siegel","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/686ed842e3520575a6050ccb719960ec","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a22d14310137f2bb15569335acac46c7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a22d14310137f2bb15569335acac46c7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"David H. Siegel"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/wordpress-599075-1937274.cloudwaysapps.com\/attorney_profiles\/david-h-siegel\/"],"url":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/author\/dsiegel\/"}]}},"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/820"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/173"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=820"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/820\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":822,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/820\/revisions\/822"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/821"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=820"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=820"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=820"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=820"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}