Andy Warhol inc. v Goldsmith

Taking the art and legal worlds by storm, the case featured today has made massive waves with its implications for artists rights throughout America. This post synthesizes all the juicy details into a well packaged brief so you can quickly understand this impactful SCOTUS decision. Let's dive in!

Ms. Lynn Goldsmith is the artist behind one of the most famous photographs of musical legend Prince. The photograph was copyrighted in 1981. A license to use the image was provided by Ms. Goldsmith to Vanity Fair in exchange for $400. The license allowed the image to be used one time as a reference image.

Vanity Fair employed world-famous graphic artist Andy Warhol, who created 15 pieces from that photograph. One of Warhol's resulting prints was then used by parent company Condé Nast (producer of Vogue, Vanity Fair, Allure, and more) as the cover image for a 2016 issue honoring Prince after his death.

In exchange for the late artist's work being used on the cover, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. received $10,000. There was no homage or payment made to Ms. Goldsmith. Ms. Goldsmith promptly filed suit, which narrowed in on the Copyright Act's fair use doctrine, and whether or not Warhol's use complied with those principles.

The Copyright Act's fair use doctrine has four factors which help IP attorneys argue for their clients' creative ownership rights. The doctrine examines each creative work based on copyrighted material by considering 1.) how the new work is used, including if this use transforms the intent behind the copyrighted work to a high enough degree, 2.) if the new piece is being used in a factual or creative way, 3.) how much the original work is used in the new creation, and 4.) how the new work will impact the financial market for the original copyrighted work.

In this case, the court predominantly considered if Warhol's work sufficiently transformed Goldsmith's original photograph, making it compliant to the doctrine's first principle. In other words, does the creation and use of Warhol's work differ enough in its intended purpose from the original copyrighted photograph by Ms. Goldsmith?

In May 2023, SCOTUS's 7-2 decision in favor of Goldsmith was officially affirmed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor providing the majority opinion. This opinion highlighted that the intended purpose of both Warhol's and Goldsmith's creations was fairly indistinguishable. Furthermore, Justice Sotomayor explained that the use was equally similar because Goldsmith's original photograph was used by other magazines at the same time that the Warhol print was used by Condé Nast. Given these considerations, the majority of the court concurred that fair use was not present.

Justice Elena Kagan delivered a dissent with Chief Justice John Roberts. This opinion argues that most creative works are developed by borrowing from a wide range of pre-existing works. The concern is that by ruling in favor of Goldsmith, future creativity will be unprotected from legal suits and thus stifled.

If you would like to take a deeper dive into this case, my resources are provided below. Additionally, you can follow TKK on Instagram or Pinterest to stay up to date on more IP cases and issues, and reach out via email or LinkedIn to request specific topics for the blog to cover.

Thank you for reading!

Kayla

Resources

Foster Garvey

Fair Use Index

LexisNexis

SCOTUS

SCOTUS Blog

Oyez