https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/06/u-s-supreme-court-vindicates-photographer-but-destabilizes-fair-use-andy-warhol-foundation-v-goldsmith-guest-blog-post.htm Mon, 03 Jul 2023 05:55:28 +0000 hourly 1 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/06/u-s-supreme-court-vindicates-photographer-but-destabilizes-fair-use-andy-warhol-foundation-v-goldsmith-guest-blog-post.htm#comment-3868 Fri, 23 Jun 2023 10:01:54 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=25166#comment-3868 […] https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/06/u-s-supreme-court-vindicates-photographer-but-destabil… […]

]]> https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2023/06/u-s-supreme-court-vindicates-photographer-but-destabilizes-fair-use-andy-warhol-foundation-v-goldsmith-guest-blog-post.htm#comment-3867 Thu, 22 Jun 2023 15:54:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=25166#comment-3867 Excellent write-up from Prof. Ochoa as usual. One thing I thought of reading the factual recitation regarding Warhol’s creation of the various alternate silkscreens was the Chapman v. Maraj District Court decision from a few years ago, where Nicki Minaj’s unauthorized interpolation of a Tracy Chapman song on a new track was fair use to the extent Minaj was merely experimenting in the studio, but its later unauthorized distribution to a radio station was not similarly privileged. The same could be said for the Prince Series to the extent it was created for Conde Nast to have options in picking the one version to be published under its license — the silkscreens not picked for initial use could exist as an exercise in experimentation, but could not be exploited in the market absent further authorization from Goldsmith.

]]>