Sullivan has filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the upcoming Supreme Court case Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith. The brief was filed as counsel of record for copyright scholar Philippa S. Loengard, the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts at Columbia Law School. The case concerns the applicability of Section 107 of the Copyright Act, which permits as a fair use that would otherwise be copyright infringement—to a print made by Andy Warhol from a photograph of the musician Prince by photographer Lynn Goldsmith. In particular, the question presented to the Court addresses the implications of the Court’s holding nearly thirty years ago in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994) that allowed for the possibility that a secondary use could be considered a fair use if it were sufficiently “transformative.” What exactly that means in the context of visual art has been a fraught—and at times incoherent—subject in recent years. Our brief explains that the Court should return the analysis of fair use to the four factors established by Congress. In the case of the first of the four factors, the Court should focus on the statutory language of the purpose and character of the works. By contrast, the inquiry into the meaning or message of the works advocated by the Warhol Foundation and the amici supporting it is a fool’s errand that provides no clarity and would render the copyright in photographs effectively unenforceable. This case is not a battle between Lynn Goldsmith and Andy Warhol; those artists proved entirely capable in 1984 of arranging the balance for themselves. It is a battle between a maximalist view by the Warhol Foundation that dismisses the value of photography as a creative medium at all.
Read More
Topics:
Copyright Act,
Roy Orbison,
Toward a Fair Use Standard,
Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music Inc.,
Kernochan Center for Law Media and the Arts,
Philippa S. Loengard Esq.,
Columbia Law School,
Prince,
transformative,
Andy Warhol,
Fair Use,
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts,
Condé Nast,
People Magazine,
The Time,
2 Live Crew,
Death Valley,
Velázquez,
Rubens,
King Philip IV of Spain,
Las Meninas,
Section 107,
Billboard,
Pierre N. Leval,
“Oh, Pretty Woman”,
Mickey Mouse
A recent injunction ruling that prohibited the destruction of the “Bicentennial Freedom Mural” in Corona, California had occasion to consider the rights asserted by the plaintiffs and artists under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), 17 U.S.C. § 106A. The order ultimately granted the injunction but on different grounds, holding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on their VARA claim.
Read More
Topics:
work of recognized stature,
Mural Conservancy of Los Angeles,
555 U.S. 7,
Moral Rights,
United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Cal. Civ. Code §§ 987 and 989,
Inc.,
Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990,
California,
Santa Ana River Mainstem Project,
Pippa Loengard,
54 U.S.C. § 306108,
VARA,
Kernochan Center for Law Media and the Arts,
Corona,
Ronald Kammeyer,
Columbia Law School,
Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate,
Copyright,
Prado Dam,
NHPA,
Administrative Procedure Act,
National Historic Preservation Act,
17 U.S.C. § 106A(a)(3)(A)-(B),
459 F.3d 128,
5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706,
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
SARM
I am pleased to be participating in a panel discussion in two weeks at the Copyright Society of the U.S.A.’s annual meeting in Newport, Rhode Island. The panel, entitled “Copyrights on the Street: Creating and Preserving Graffiti and Other Art in Public Spaces,” will explore:
Read More
Topics:
Copyrights on the Street Creating and Preserving G,
Newport,
Rhode Island,
Graffiti Art,
Visual Artists Rights Act,
Deirdre A. Fox,
Copyright Society of the U.S.A.,
Peter Caruso,
VARA,
Kernochan Center for Law Media and the Arts,
Phillippa Loengard,
Events,
17 U.S.C. § 106A,
Columbia Law School,
Copyright,
Christopher J. Robinson
