Just a quick note based on the Second Circuit’s recent ruling in Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, where it determined that Warhol’s Prince series was not transformative and therefore was subject to copyright provisions in relation to the reference photograph Warhol used. The court went through a fair use analysis, and the case was primarily concerning copyright, but it is interesting to contrast this decision with the Comedy III case, which was primarily Right of Publicity-related. In Comedy III, the Three Stooges artwork was held to not be sufficiently transformative, and the court used Warhol’s Blue Marilyn as the example of a work that would, in contrast, and in the court’s estimation, be sufficiently transformative. I’ll let those motivated to seek more run their own searches rather than post links here, as there is no lack of content, analysis and discussion being offered on this recent ruling. I have not, as yet, seen reference to the contrast with the Comedy III case, so I thought it may be useful to note it here.
April 30, 2021 No Comments »
Tags: @FaberLaw, artist reference, copyright, expert witness, fair use, http://www.LuminaryGroup.com, http://www.rightofpublicity.com, infringement valuation, licensing, LuminaryGroup.com, publicity rights, publicity rights expert, publicity rights professor, Right of Publicity, right of publicity analysis, Right of Publicity expert, right of publicity professor, right of publicity valuation, RightofPublicity.com, Second Circuit, transformative use, valuations, Warhol Blue Marilyn, Warhol Prince series, Warhol v. Goldsmith, what is a transformative use