![]() ![]() They did not seem enthusiastic about a lower court decision, but it was difficult to ascertain how they would finally come out in the case.Ĭhief Justice John Roberts wondered if the test should revolve around exactly how different the new work is from the existing work. Now the Supreme Court must produce the proper test that protects artist’s rights to monetize their work, but also encourages new art. But an appeals court reversed – ruling that a new meaning or message is not enough to qualify for fair use. In the case at hand, a district court ruled in favor of Warhol, basing its decision on the fact that the two works in question had a different meaning and message. Several justices worried about how their eventual opinion would impact book-to-movie adaptations, motion pictures and TV sequels.Ĭentral to the case is whether the late Andy Warhol infringed on a photographer’s copyright when he created a series of silkscreens of the musician Prince.Īt issue is the so called “fair use” doctrine in copyright law that permits the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Probing each side for over an hour, the justices attempted to determine when a new work based on a prior piece is substantially transformative, and when it simply amounts a copycat version of an existing work subject to copyright rules. Warhol silkscreens of Prince, from Supreme Court filings Supreme Court ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |