The Supreme Court ruled that silkscreens pop artist Andy Warhol made of rock star Prince infringed on the copyright held by a prominent photographer who captured the original image. The court ruled 7-2 that Warhol’s images did not constitute “fair use” under copyright law. The case raised a legal question of considerable interest to people in all kinds of creative industries, including television, film and fine art, and required the court to wrestle with how to define whether a new work based on an existing one is “transformative” — meaning it does not violate copyright law.
In a ruling authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court concluded that the works made by Warhol did not have a sufficiently different commercial purpose from that of the original photo taken by Goldsmith. The issue ended up in court, with Goldsmith and the Andy Warhol Foundation suing each other to determine whether Warhol's image constituted fair use. In 2019, a federal judge ruled in the foundation's favor, saying Warhols images were transformative because while Goldsmith's photo showed a “vulnerable human being,”the Warhol prints depicted an “iconic,larger-than-life figure.” However,the foundation sought Supreme Court precedent cited by both sides.
Closely watched case pitted celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith against renowned pop artist Andy War hol over his series of silk screens based on her photograph of iconic musician Prince.The Supreme Court sided with Goldsmith,arguing that such standard would make copyright "completely unworkable,"in part because it would ask judges to assess meaning behind derivative artworks and decide if they are transformative enough not to infringe upon earlier works.
This outcome may have far-reaching implications for small businesses as well as major movie studios which filed briefs supporting either side during this dispute.In previous landmark decisions involving copyright and transformative works, the Supreme Court has emphasized on idea of "transformative" being an important factor in determining fair use under copyright law.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority, affirming a lower court's ruling that sided with Lynn Goldsmith.The appeals court had stated that it was not their role to play art critic or consider meaning behind Warhol's work while analyzing copyrights infringement issues. This case serves as a reminder for artists and creators to be cautious when using existing copyrighted material as basis for new creations without securing appropriate permissions or licenses from original creators.