Michael Caruso
As David's loyal readers know, this is a momentous year for the Supreme Court. The public's confidence in the Supreme Court is at a historic low, the Court's investigation of the Dobbs leak has not been resolved, and perhaps relatedly, there's been a significant push to force the Court to implement an ethics code. And the cases the Court will hear this year are noteworthy—affirmative action, voting rights, and the "independent state legislature doctrine," among others.
But because I'm not a very political person, I'm interested in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith. Warhol, of course, was a pioneer of American pop art. Lynn Goldsmith is a groundbreaking artist and photographer.
Both Warhol and Goldsmith have significant connections to music. Warhol worked with The Velvet Underground, Blondie, The Rolling Stones, and many more. Goldsmith was one of the first woman rock photographers. The Supreme Court's case is about their art colliding.
In 1981, Goldsmith took this photo of Prince.
In 1984, around the time Prince released “Purple Rain,” Vanity Fair hired Warhol to create an image to accompany an article titled “Purple Fame.” The magazine paid Ms. Goldsmith $400 to license the portrait. In a series of 16 images, Warhol altered the photograph in various ways, notably by cropping and coloring it to create what his foundation’s lawyers described as “a flat, impersonal, disembodied, masklike appearance. Vanity Fair ran this image.
Litigation followed, focused on whether Warhol had transformed Goldsmith’s photograph. The Supreme Court has said, in a case involving Miami's own Luther Luke Campbell, a work is transformative if it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message.”
The district court judge found that the Warhol series is "transformative" because it conveys a different message from the original and thus is "fair use" under the Copyright Act. But a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, declaring that judges "should not assume the role of art critic and seek to ascertain ... the meaning of the works at issue."
At the Supreme Court, there was a lively debate filled with pop culture references and marked by unusual laughter as justices invoked the Lord of the Rings books and movies, the Syracuse basketball team, and Cheerios cereal to illustrate their points. When Justice Thomas mentioned in passing that he had been a fan of Prince in the 1980s, Justice Kagan quipped: “No longer?” “Only on Thursday nights,” Thomas responded. (Party like it's 1789?).
Although this case may not impact our democracy, the outcome could shift the law to favor more control by the original artist, but doing that could also inhibit artists and other content creators who build on existing work. Stay tuned.
And if you're interested in Prince's music, here's a clip of an incendiary performance at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (he casually strolls out at 3:27 to light up the hall).
And as an update to a previous post, Brittney Griner has been held in a Russian jail for 259 days and counting.
But because I'm not a very political person, I'm interested in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith. Warhol, of course, was a pioneer of American pop art. Lynn Goldsmith is a groundbreaking artist and photographer.
Both Warhol and Goldsmith have significant connections to music. Warhol worked with The Velvet Underground, Blondie, The Rolling Stones, and many more. Goldsmith was one of the first woman rock photographers. The Supreme Court's case is about their art colliding.
In 1981, Goldsmith took this photo of Prince.
In 1984, around the time Prince released “Purple Rain,” Vanity Fair hired Warhol to create an image to accompany an article titled “Purple Fame.” The magazine paid Ms. Goldsmith $400 to license the portrait. In a series of 16 images, Warhol altered the photograph in various ways, notably by cropping and coloring it to create what his foundation’s lawyers described as “a flat, impersonal, disembodied, masklike appearance. Vanity Fair ran this image.
Litigation followed, focused on whether Warhol had transformed Goldsmith’s photograph. The Supreme Court has said, in a case involving Miami's own Luther Luke Campbell, a work is transformative if it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message.”
The district court judge found that the Warhol series is "transformative" because it conveys a different message from the original and thus is "fair use" under the Copyright Act. But a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, declaring that judges "should not assume the role of art critic and seek to ascertain ... the meaning of the works at issue."
At the Supreme Court, there was a lively debate filled with pop culture references and marked by unusual laughter as justices invoked the Lord of the Rings books and movies, the Syracuse basketball team, and Cheerios cereal to illustrate their points. When Justice Thomas mentioned in passing that he had been a fan of Prince in the 1980s, Justice Kagan quipped: “No longer?” “Only on Thursday nights,” Thomas responded. (Party like it's 1789?).
Although this case may not impact our democracy, the outcome could shift the law to favor more control by the original artist, but doing that could also inhibit artists and other content creators who build on existing work. Stay tuned.
And if you're interested in Prince's music, here's a clip of an incendiary performance at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (he casually strolls out at 3:27 to light up the hall).
And as an update to a previous post, Brittney Griner has been held in a Russian jail for 259 days and counting.
The transformative work doctrine as applied to the facts here is crap. The original author needs to get paid. Failing to do so effectively strips content creator's of their copyrights (literally, the right to make copies).
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Ms Griner did not understand that she was pushing the envelope by bringing that vape into Russia. She though she was above their laws. Apparently, not, but I am sure that the testicle-free Bidenites will trade her for one or more terrorists.
ReplyDeleteYes that is the problem. No testicles.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am old enough to remember when TFG agreed to the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners.
Caruso thought this wouldnt be political. silly pd.
ReplyDeleteThat interpretation of While My Guitar Gently Weeps is a historic gem. It will never get old. Prince shines as a diamond. Thank you for the opportunity to watch it again.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, and 12:26 is right about TFG. I would add that TFG was going to hastily withdraw from Afghanistan while still in office, but he was talked into delaying it. Guess he did not have the fortitude to execute his own decisions. What's a colloquial way of stating that?