{"id":246460,"date":"2021-04-03T16:30:35","date_gmt":"2021-04-03T11:00:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=246460"},"modified":"2021-07-31T09:16:39","modified_gmt":"2021-07-31T03:46:39","slug":"copyright-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/","title":{"rendered":"The Prince Series by Andy Warhol depicting the singer did not constitute \u201cfair use\u201d of the source photograph by Lynn Goldsmith || Detailed Report ||"},"content":{"rendered":"

United States Court of Appeals (2nd<\/sup> Circuit): <\/strong>While deciding the instant dispute between renowned celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith and Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, involving the Prince Series<\/em> of photographs, the Circuit Court ruled in favour of Goldsmith and held that 1980s portrait series by Andy Warhol depicting the singer Prince did not constitute \u201cfair use\u201d of the photograph by Lynn Goldsmith that it was based on. Thus Warhol\u2019s Prince Series works are substantially similar to the Goldsmith Photograph as a matter of law. After a detailed discussion, the decision of the Dist. Court was reversed and the matter was remanded for further proceeding consistent with 2nd<\/sup> Circuit Court\u2019s opinion.<\/p>\n

Background<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The dispute is centers around a series of silkscreen prints and pencil illustrations created by visual artist Andy Warhol based on a 1981 photograph of Prince that was taken Lynn Goldsmith in her studio, and in which she holds copyright. A professional photographer focusing mainly on celebrity photography, Lynn Goldsmith (also the founder of Lynn Goldsmith Ltd. [LGL]), in December 1981 took a series of portrait photographs of musician Prince Rogers Nelson (popularly known as Prince) for the Newsweek Magazine. The lighting and the makeup was arranged in a way so as to highlight and accentuate Prince\u2019s \u201cchiseled bone structure and his sensuality\u201d- \u201cGoldsmith was trying to capture his willingness to bust through what must be his immense fears to make the work that he wanted to make<\/em>.\u201d Goldsmith took a total number of 23 photographs- 12 black and white and 11 colour photographs and retained copyright in each of the photographs that she took.<\/p>\n

In 1984, Goldsmith though her firm LGL, licensed the Goldsmith Photograph to Vanity Fair<\/em> magazine for use as an \u201cartist reference\u201d,<\/em><\/strong> which meant that an artist would create a work of art based on the image reference<\/em><\/strong>. The license allowed Vanity Fair<\/em> to publish an illustration based on the Goldsmith Photograph in its November 1984 issue; it further required that the illustration be accompanied by an attribution to Goldsmith. Goldsmith however was unaware of the license at the time and played no role in selecting the Goldsmith Photograph for submission to Vanity Fair<\/em>. The magazine then commissioned Andy Warhol to create an image of Prince for its November 1984 issue. Warhol\u2019s illustration, together with an attribution to Goldsmith, was published accompanying an article about Prince by Tristan Vox. Additionally, a separate attribution to Goldsmith was included elsewhere in the issue, crediting her with the \u201csource photograph\u201d<\/em><\/strong> for the Warhol illustration. Vanity Fair<\/em> did not counsel Goldsmith that Warhol was the artist for whom her work would serve as a reference, and she did not see the article when it was initially published. Unbeknownst to Lynn Goldmsith, Andy Warhol created 15 additional works based on the Goldsmith Photograph, known collectively (including the Vanity Fair<\/em> image) as the \u201cPrince Series\u201d.<\/em><\/strong> The Prince Series consisted of fourteen silkscreen prints (twelve on canvas, two on paper) and two pencil illustrations.<\/p>\n

After Warhol\u2019s demise, the Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts (AWF) acquired title to and copyright in the Prince Series. Between 1993 and 2004, AWF sold or otherwise transferred custody of 12 of the original Prince Series works to third parties, and, in 1998, transferred custody of the other four works to The Andy Warhol Museum. AWF also retains copyright in the Prince Series images and through The Artist Rights Society (a third-party organization that serves as AWF\u2019s agent), continues to license the images for editorial, commercial, and museum usage.<\/p>\n

All the aforementioned developments took place with Lynn Goldsmith being unaware of it. However that changed in 2016 post Prince\u2019s demise. Cond\u00e9 Nast, Vanity Fair\u2019s parent company, contacted AWF with the intent to determine whether AWF still had the 1984 image, which they had hoped to use in connection with a planned magazine commemorating Prince\u2019s life. Cond\u00e9 Nast obtained a commercial license, to be exclusive for three months, for a different Prince Series image for the cover of the planned tribute magazine. Cond\u00e9 Nast published the tribute magazine in May 2016 with a Prince Series image on the cover. Goldsmith was not given any credit or attribution for the image, which<\/em><\/strong> was instead attributed solely to AWF<\/strong><\/em>. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Legal Trajectory<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Goldsmith for the first time became aware of the \u2018Prince Series\u2019 and she contacted the AWF to advise it of the perceived infringement of her copyright. In November 2016, Goldsmith registered the Goldsmith Photograph with the U.S. Copyright Office as an unpublished work. In April, 2017, AWF sued Goldsmith and LGL for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement or, in the alternative, fair use. Goldsmith countersued for copyright infringement.<\/p>\n

The District Court however granted summary judgment in favour of AWF. The Dist. Court decided that the Prince Series was \u201ctransformative\u201d<\/em><\/strong> because, while the Goldsmith Photograph portrays Prince as \u201cnot a comfortable person\u201d and a \u201cvulnerable human being,\u201d the Prince Series portrays Prince as an \u201ciconic, larger-than-life figure\u201d. It was also held that the Goldsmith\u2019s photograph being creative and unpublished work holds little import in the dispute because the Prince Series works are \u201ctransformative works,\u201d<\/strong> <\/em>and <\/em>in creating the Prince Series, Warhol \u201cremoved nearly all of the Goldsmith Photograph\u2019s protectible elements<\/em>\u201d. Aggrieved by this decision, Goldsmith filed the instant appeal.<\/p>\n

Observations and Conclusions<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

In order to decide the matter, the Court delved into the core concepts of copyright. The Court reviewed the case under the following important heads-<\/p>\n

Copyright, Fair Use and Derivative Works<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Transformative Works:<\/strong> The Court observed that the Dist. Court\u2019s decision that the Prince Series is transformative work as they can reasonably be perceived to have transformed Prince from a vulnerable, uncomfortable person to an iconic, larger-than-life figure was erroneous. It was observed that it may well have been Goldsmith\u2019s subjective intent to portray Prince as a \u201cvulnerable human being\u201d and Warhol\u2019s to strip Prince of that humanity and instead display him as a popular icon, \u201cwhether a work is transformative cannot turn merely on the stated or perceived intent of the artist or the meaning or impression that a critic<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 or for that matter, a judge \u2013 draws from the work\u201d.<\/em><\/strong> The word \u2018transformative\u2019 if given too broad an interpretation can also seem to authorize copying that should fall within the scope of an author\u2019s derivative rights, therefore the district judge should not assume the role of art critic and seek to ascertain the intent behind or meaning of the works at issue. That is because judges are typically unsuited to make aesthetic judgments and because such perceptions are inherently subjective. Instead, the judge must examine whether the secondary work\u2019s use of its source material is in service of a \u201cfundamentally different and new\u201d artistic purpose and character, such that the secondary work stands apart from the \u201craw material\u201d used to create it<\/em><\/strong>. The secondary work\u2019s transformative purpose and character must, at a bare minimum, comprise something more than the imposition of another artist\u2019s style on the primary work such that the secondary work remains recognizably deriving from, and retaining the essential elements of, its source material.<\/p>\n

The Court thus concluded that the Prince Series is not \u201ctransformative\u201d- \u201cThat is not to deny that the Warhol works display the distinct aesthetic sensibility that many would immediately associate with Warhol\u2019s signature style \u2013 the elements of which are absent from the Goldsmith photo. But the same can be said, for example, of the Ken Russell film, from a screenplay by Larry Kramer, derived from D.H. Lawrence\u2019s novel, <\/em>Women in Love<\/em>: the film is as recognizable a \u201cKen Russell\u201d as the Prince Series are recognizably \u201cWarhols.\u201d but the film, for all the ways in which it transforms (that is, in the ordinary meaning of the word, which indeed is used in the very definition of derivative works, its source material, is also plainly an adaptation of the Lawrence novel<\/em>\u201d. \u00a0The Prince Series retains the essential elements of its source material, and Warhol\u2019s modifications serve primarily to magnify some elements of that material and minimize others. While the collective effect of those alterations may change the Goldsmith Photograph in ways that give a different impression of its subject, the Goldsmith Photograph remains the recognizable foundation upon which the Prince Series is built<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The Court also highlighted that \u201ceach<\/em> Prince Series work is immediately recognizable as a \u2018Warhol<\/em>\u2019\u201d is an irrelevant logic to this Court\u2019s analysis- \u201cEntertaining that logic would inevitably create a celebrity-plagiarist privilege; the more established the artist and the more distinct that artist\u2019s style, the greater leeway that artist would have to pilfer the creative labors of others. But the law draws no such distinctions<\/em>\u201d, thus agreeing with the argument presented by Goldsmith that \u201cMartin Scorsese\u2019s film <\/em><\/strong>The Irishman <\/em><\/strong>is recognizably \u201ca Scorsese\u201d but \u201cdoes not absolve him of the obligation to license the original book\u201d on which it is based<\/em><\/strong>\u201d. \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0Commercial Use: <\/strong>Even though the 2nd<\/sup> Circuit Court agreed with the Dist. Court\u2019s observations regarding Prince Series being commercial in nature, and that they produce an artistic value that serves the greater public interest; however, the Court refused to conclude that Warhol and AWF are entitled to monetize it without paying Goldsmith the \u201ccustomary price\u201d for the rights to her work<\/em><\/strong>, even if that monetization is used for the benefit of the public. \u201cJust as the commercial nature of a transformative secondary use does not itself preclude a finding that the use is fair, the fact that a commercial non-transformative work may also serve the public interest or that the profits from its commercial use are turned to the promotion of non-commercial ends does not factor significantly in favor of finding fair use under the circumstances present here\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Nature of Copyrighted Work: <\/strong>The Court again pointed out that Dist. Court correctly held that the Goldsmith Photograph is both unpublished and creative, but in concluding that these factors should favor neither party as LGL had licensed the Goldsmith Photograph to Vanity Fair and the Prince Series was highly transformative, the Dist. Court committed an error. \u201cHaving recognized the Goldsmith Photograph as both creative and unpublished, the Dist. Court should have found this factor to favor Goldsmith irrespective of whether it adjudged the Prince Series works transformative within the meaning of the first factor. And, because we disagree that the Prince Series works are transformative, we would accord this factor correspondingly greater weight<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

Amount and Sustainability of Use: <\/strong>The Court observed that two considerations are necessary in order to judge this factor in relation to the original work- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole<\/em>; and, the quantity of the materials used\u2019 but also their quality and importance<\/em>. The Court noted that copyright does not protect ideas, but only \u201cthe original or unique way that an author expresses those ideas, concepts, principles, or processes\u201d. <\/em><\/strong>The Court observed that it is true that Goldsmith cannot copyright Prince\u2019s face, but the law grants her a broad monopoly on its image as it appears in her photographs of him, including the Goldsmith Photograph. It was concluded that, \u201cthe Prince Series borrows significantly from the Goldsmith Photograph, both quantitatively and qualitatively. While Warhol did indeed crop and flatten the Goldsmith Photograph, the end product is not merely a screen print identifiably based on a photograph of Prince. Rather it is a screen print readily identifiable as deriving from a <\/em><\/strong>specific <\/em><\/strong>photograph of Prince, the Goldsmith Photograph\u201d. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Effect of the Use on the Market for the Original: <\/strong>The Court stated that it was not persuaded by the Dist. Court\u2019s rationale that the Prince Series poses no threat to Goldsmith\u2019s licensing markets. Fair use is an affirmative defense; as such, the ultimate burden of proving that the secondary use does not compete in the relevant market is appropriately borne by the party asserting the defense: the secondary user<\/em><\/strong>. Since Goldsmith has identified a relevant market, AWF\u2019s failure to put forth any evidence that the availability of the Prince Series works poses no threat to Goldsmith\u2019s actual or potential revenue in that market tilts the scales toward Goldsmith. \u201cThe Dist. Court entirely overlooked the potential harm to Goldsmith\u2019s derivative market, which is likewise substantial. Most directly, AWF\u2019s licensing of the Prince Series works to Cond\u00e9 Nast without crediting or paying Goldsmith deprived her of royalty payments to which she would have otherwise been entitled\u201d<\/em>. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Substantial Similarity<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court observed that the Dist. Court did not analyze the issue of substantial similarity when the issue is logically a precursor to that of fair use. In general, two works are substantially similar when \u201can average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work. The Court concluded that, \u201cThis is not to say that every use of an exact reproduction constitutes a work that is substantially similar to the original. But here, given the degree to which Goldsmith\u2019s work remains recognizable within Warhol\u2019s, there can be no reasonable debate that the works are substantially similar. Prince was much photographed. But any reasonable viewer with access to a range of such photographs including the Goldsmith Photograph would have no difficulty identifying the latter as the source material for Warhol\u2019s Prince Series<\/em>\u201d. \u00a0[The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Lynn Goldsmith, 2021 SCC OnLine US CA 2C 1<\/b><\/a>, decided on 26-03-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Image credits:<\/strong> The Wall Street Journal<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit): While deciding the instant dispute between renowned celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith and Andy Warhol Foundation <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":246462,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[45595,9271,45594,5881,45596],"class_list":["post-246460","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-arts-and-artists","tag-copyright","tag-fair-use","tag-ipr","tag-prince-series"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Prince Series by Andy Warhol depicting the singer did not constitute \u201cfair use\u201d of the source photograph by Lynn Goldsmith | Detailed Report | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Copyright\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Prince Series by Andy Warhol depicting the singer did not constitute \u201cfair use\u201d of the source photograph by Lynn Goldsmith || Detailed Report ||\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Copyright\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-04-03T11:00:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-07-31T03:46:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/US-Court-of-2nd-Appeals.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/\",\"name\":\"The Prince Series by Andy Warhol depicting the singer did not constitute \u201cfair use\u201d of the source photograph by Lynn Goldsmith | Detailed Report | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/US-Court-of-2nd-Appeals.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-04-03T11:00:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-07-31T03:46:39+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Copyright\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/US-Court-of-2nd-Appeals.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/US-Court-of-2nd-Appeals.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":886},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Prince Series by Andy Warhol depicting the singer did not constitute \u201cfair use\u201d of the source photograph by Lynn Goldsmith || Detailed Report ||\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Prince Series by Andy Warhol depicting the singer did not constitute \u201cfair use\u201d of the source photograph by Lynn Goldsmith | Detailed Report | SCC Times","description":"Copyright","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:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Prince Series by Andy Warhol depicting the singer did not constitute \u201cfair use\u201d of the source photograph by Lynn Goldsmith || Detailed Report ||","og_description":"Copyright","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-04-03T11:00:35+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-07-31T03:46:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":886,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/US-Court-of-2nd-Appeals.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/","name":"The Prince Series by Andy Warhol depicting the singer did not constitute \u201cfair use\u201d of the source photograph by Lynn Goldsmith | Detailed Report | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/US-Court-of-2nd-Appeals.jpg","datePublished":"2021-04-03T11:00:35+00:00","dateModified":"2021-07-31T03:46:39+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Copyright","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/US-Court-of-2nd-Appeals.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/US-Court-of-2nd-Appeals.jpg","width":1330,"height":886},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/03\/copyright-3\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Prince Series by Andy Warhol depicting the singer did not constitute \u201cfair use\u201d of the source photograph by Lynn Goldsmith || Detailed Report ||"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/US-Court-of-2nd-Appeals.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":293027,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/25\/andy-warhol-foundation-commercial-licensing-orange-prince-cond-nast-not-fair-use-lynn-goldsmith-prince-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":246460,"position":0},"title":"Andy Warhol Foundation’s commercial licensing of \u2018Orange Prince\u2019 to Cond\u00e9 Nast cannot be defended as fair use of Lynn Goldsmith’s copyrighted photo of Prince","author":"Sucheta","date":"May 25, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit), the Court with a ratio of 7:2 held that first fair use factor as under 17 US Code \u00a7107(1) favours Lynn Goldsmith and not AWF.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"supreme court of the united states","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281354,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/10\/delhi-arbitration-weekend-2023-registrations-open\/","url_meta":{"origin":246460,"position":1},"title":"Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2023 [Registrations Open]","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 10, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi International Arbitration Centre has commenced the online registration for the first edition of its flagship event - Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2023. The event is set to roll out with its inaugural session on 16th\u00a0February, 2023 which begins with a special address by the Guest of Honour, Mr. Peter Henry\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Events\/Webinars"","block_context":{"text":"Events\/Webinars","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/events-and-webinars\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-37.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":369054,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/06\/day-1-iba-india-litigation-adr-symposium-2025-highlights\/","url_meta":{"origin":246460,"position":2},"title":"From Rule of Law to Cross-Border Justice: Day 1 at the IBA India Litigation and ADR Symposium 2025","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"December 6, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Day 1 of the 4th IBA India Litigation and ADR Symposium explored key issues shaping India\u2019s legal landscape, including the rule of law, judicial independence, access to justice, and cross-border dispute resolution.","rel":"","context":"In "Events\/Webinars"","block_context":{"text":"Events\/Webinars","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/events-and-webinars\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"IBA India Litigation","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/blog-42-7.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/blog-42-7.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/blog-42-7.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/blog-42-7.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":320212,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/17\/prince-harry-ordered-by-the-uk-hc-to-pay-90-legal-costs-to-the-home-dept\/","url_meta":{"origin":246460,"position":3},"title":"[Downgrading of Prince Harry\u2019s Security] | UK HC directs the Duke of Sussex to pay 90% of reasonable costs to the Home Department for the legal expenses incurred","author":"Editor","date":"April 17, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The instant costs order is in addition to successive series of orders passed by the English courts in the matter of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, who had stepped down from being a senior royal; thereby having his public-funded security downgraded whilst visiting the UK.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Duke of Sussex award of costs Megxit","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Duke-of-Sussex-award-of-costs-Megxit.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Duke-of-Sussex-award-of-costs-Megxit.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Duke-of-Sussex-award-of-costs-Megxit.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/Duke-of-Sussex-award-of-costs-Megxit.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":247036,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/13\/prince-harry\/","url_meta":{"origin":246460,"position":4},"title":"P&H HC | No police action against Prince Harry for breaking promise to marry! So-called Prince Harry may be sitting in a cyber cafe in a Punjab village: Court dismisses lawyer’s plea alleging broken promise to marry","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 13, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: Arvind Singh Sangwan, J., dismissed a petition wherein the petitioner\/Advocate filed a petition seeking legal action against Prince Harry Middleton and to direct the United Kingdom Police Cell to take action against him, as despite a promise to marry the petitioner, said promise has not\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":242379,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/17\/xiv-edition-of-national-law-school-trilegal-arbitration-moot-nlstiam\/","url_meta":{"origin":246460,"position":5},"title":"XIV Edition of National Law School – Trilegal Arbitration Moot (NLSTIAM)","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 17, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Devansh Kaushik","rel":"","context":"In "Law School News"","block_context":{"text":"Law School News","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/NLSTIAM.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/NLSTIAM.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/NLSTIAM.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/NLSTIAM.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/NLSTIAM.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246460","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246460"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246460\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/246462"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}