Photographer Prevails as US Supreme Court Rejects Andy Warhol Foundation's Defence

Photographer Prevails as US Supreme Court Rejects Andy Warhol Foundation's Defence

In a closely watched copyright case revolving around a photograph of music icon Prince, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled against the fair use defence put forth by the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF) and in favour of photographer Lynn Goldsmith. This decision holds significant implications within the realm of copyright law.

In a decisive 7-2 opinion issued on May 18, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) concluded that Andy Warhol, the renowned pop art pioneer, violated the copyright of prominent rock photographer Lynn Goldsmith. The ruling determined that Warhol's creation of silkscreens featuring the likeness of music artist Prince infringed upon Goldsmith's original photo.

The core of the disagreement revolves around two images of Prince: a copyrighted photograph captured by Goldsmith in 1981 and an orange silkscreen portrait titled 'Orange Prince' that Warhol created using Goldsmith's photo for a magazine cover commemorating the iconic artist.

In 1984, Vanity Fair requested permission to utilise Goldsmith's photo for their cover, and they engaged Warhol to create a silkscreen adaptation based on that photo. The magazine duly acknowledged Goldsmith as the "source photograph" and compensated her with a one-time payment of $400 for this specific usage.

In the majority opinion, the justices highlighted that Warhol's utilisation went beyond that point. He created an additional 15 works derived from Goldsmith's photograph. Subsequently, the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF) licensed one of those works to Condé Nast, specifically for the purpose of illustrating a magazine feature on Prince. As a result, AWF gained $10,000 from this transaction, while Goldsmith received no compensation. When Goldsmith raised her concerns about the infringement of her copyright by AWF's use of her photograph, AWF took legal action against her.

The United States copyright law incorporates a fair use doctrine, which promotes freedom of expression by allowing the unlicensed usage of copyrighted works under specific circumstances. This law requires the evaluation of four factors to assess the permissibility of a particular use.

After careful consideration of all four factors, the district court reached a decision, granting summary judgment in favour of the Andy Warhol Foundation based on their argument that Warhol's use of the image constituted "fair use." However, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later overturned this ruling, determining that all four fair use factors favoured Lynn Goldsmith.

The Supreme Court of the United States was solely tasked with addressing the question of whether the first fair use factor, which examines the purpose and nature of the use, particularly in terms of commercial or non-profit educational purposes, favoured the recent commercial licensing of the image to Condé Nast by the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF). On this specific matter, SCOTUS aligned with the Second Circuit's decision, favouring Lynn Goldsmith rather than AWF.

“AWF contends that the Prince Series works are ‘transformative’ and that the first fair use factor thus weighs in AWF’s favour because the works convey a different meaning or message than the photograph,” The justices said.

Continuing their analysis, the justices emphasised that both the original photograph and AWF's copied version served a similar purpose: portraying Prince in magazine stories about Prince.

Furthermore, AWF's use of the image was undeniably commercial in nature. Despite the introduction of new artistic expression in the form of "Orange Prince," the justices concluded that, within the context of the disputed use, the first fair use factor favored Lynn Goldsmith.