The US Supreme Court has decided to hear the fair use case brought by the AndyWarhol Foundation against photographer Lynn Goldsmith. Warhol used a picture of Prince by Goldsmith to create a series of prints, which led Goldsmith to imply that her copyright had been infringed by the artist. The Foundation sued her, she countersued, and after a series of back and forth between courts, the case landed on the desk of the Supreme Court which decided to hear the case.
Here, Jonathan Reichman, a partner at law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP where he covers intellectual property and copyright litigation cases, and JeremyKing, an associate at the firm, look at the potential implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the issue of fair use.
The fair use defense, in theory—and in text—includes four factors, 1) the nature of the resulting work (or, “transformativeness”), 2) the nature of the work copied, 3) the amount and substantiality, both quantitatively and qualitatively, of the work copied, and 4) economic harm.
However, with decisions such as Cariou v. Prince, the Second Circuit has long been hastening fair use’s metamorphosis into a single factor “on/off switch” based on transformativeness alone. Such decisions have become so pervasive that non-lawyers generally believe this to be the only factor. “But it’s parody!” cries the internet.
Hunton Andrews Kurth‘s JonathanReichman
With the current state of the law, it’s hard to blame them. Since its 1994 decision in Campbell v. Acuff Rose (a.k.a. the “Pretty Woman” case), the Supreme Court has explicitly opined on fair use only once, in last year’s Oracle v. Google decision, which was limited to Application Programming Interfaces. Not much use to a painter or a musician.
A different and new artistic purpose
This brings us to the Supreme Court’s upcoming hearings for Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. Lynn Goldsmith is a professional photographer who took a photograph of music legend, Prince, in 1981 before the height of his fame. Three years later, when ‘Purple Rain’ was released, she licensed this photograph to VanityFair, who had Andy Warhol create a modified rendition in the colorful style for which he is known.
Unbeknownst to Ms. Goldsmith, Warhol created an entire series of paintings based on her photograph. In anticipation of being sued for copyright infringement, the Warhol foundation sued for a judicial declaration that the Warhol paintings did not infringe Goldsmith’s photograph. Sure enough, she countersued for infringement.
The district court held Warhol’s paintings to be fair use, but the Second Circuit reversed, finding that his paintings did not embody a “fundamentally different and new artistic purpose and character[.]”
“Click!” goes the “on/off switch.”
Creating confusion in the first place
While there is social utility in a heightened emphasis on whether a new use is transformative — after all, we’re dealing with works of art, and that is the only artistic question courts concern themselves with in a fair use analysis — it is asking courts to do precisely what Justice Holmes cautioned against in Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. when he observed that “[i]t would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of [works of art], outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits.”
Hunton Andrews Kurth‘s Jeremy King
Studies have found that appellate courts reverse district courts more frequently on the “fair use” issue than on any other issue of copyright law. This means that, even in the event of a jury trial, the “final judges” frequently are “those trained only in the law.” Furthermore, despite a good faith effort, the Second Circuit — in an effort to clarify the “transformative” test — relied upon the same kind of subjective standards and buzzwords that appear in prior decisions, and that created the confusion in the first place.
We’re left with an unclearly defined, subjective test upon which appeals court judges, and not juries, frequently make the final determination of whether a work qualifies as fair use. The Supreme Court has before it a golden opportunity to show us whether this confusion can be overcome, or whether it is doomed to failure based upon the fundamental limitations of “fair use” law itself.
Interpretation ripe for manipulation
As the law currently stands, the most glaring problem with this subjective factor is that anything that is ripe for interpretation is also ripe for manipulation. Famous artists like Richard Prince have made brazen claims that simply by attaching their name to a work, they have transformed its meaning.
This begs the question: does “A Warhol” have meaning? Not the specific work, but his style in general. You don’t need a membership to the Met for the name Warhol to conjure up images of re-colorized Campbell’s. So does such identifiable re-colorization constitute a “fundamentally different and new artistic purpose and character” from a photograph? What about from this photograph?
Does it matter that, as the Warhol Foundation has alleged, the original photograph portrays Prince as “vulnerable,” whereas getting The Warhol Treatment renders him looking “powerful?” The Warhol Foundation sure thinks so. Given that the meaning of art is in the eye of the beholder, it is nigh impossible to prove or disprove such an interpretation, let alone prove it in an objective manner that meets the burden of proof.
Overemphasis on transformativeness
But must this factor be so subjective? While the Second Circuit reaffirmed that the evaluation of whether of a work is “transformative” depends on how the work may “reasonably be perceived”—a standard that has been recognized by all courts—virtually no attention has been paid to whether empirical evidence, such as a consumer perception survey, can play a role in this analysis.
Similar surveys are a near requisite in trademark suits. While such evidence will always carry with it the risk of self-serving surveys, similar risks exist for expert testimony regarding other areas of copyright law and the result has been that a battle of dueling experts, much like the arguments of the adverse parties calling them to the stand, provides judges and juries with the strongest arguments for either side, allowing for more informed decision-making. This is the foundation of American jurisprudence.
Despite the overemphasis on “transformativeness,” the Second Circuit’s stricter interpretation thereof served as a reality check that copyright law protects the little guy as well, and that photographers are artists too. In its petition to the Supreme Court, The Warhol Foundation argued that the Second Circuit’s decision “threatens a sea-change in the law of copyright” and “casts a cloud of legal uncertainty over an entire genre of visual art.”
An artist could should get a license
In their amicus brief, the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation, Roy Lichtenstein Foundation, and Brooklyn Museum collectively argued that “[c]reative appropriation of existing images has been a staple of artistic development for centuries and remains essential to much of contemporary art,” and that “[t]he decision threatens to impose a deep chill on artistic progress.”
However, this, like so many similar arguments made before, ignores the fact that even if an artist intends to use someone else’s preexisting work as raw materials to create their masterpiece, the artist could, and should, get a license. This is so easy in the internet era.
In all but the most extraordinary cases, the difference is clear between drawing inspiration and wholesale use of someone else’s work as a raw material. It’s still illegal to steal a paintbrush, so why should a photograph be any different?
By Jonathan Reichman and JeremyKing from law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Days after Belgium's House of Commons adopted a text transposing the European Union's Copyright Directive, introducing equitable remuneration for performers for the online use of music, independent labels' organisation IMPALA has renewed its opposition to the measure.
In a document send to the media, IMPALA called for a "swift and faithful implementation" of the performers' provisions in the Directive, and invited stakeholders to look into the agreement between labels and performers signed i...
A paid subscription is required to read more.
Log in below, or UPGRADE / SUBSCRIBE.
The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has seized six domain names of websites "used to distribute copyrighted material without the authorization of the copyright holders."
According to the DoJ, law enforcement investigation from the Eastern District of Virginia confirmed that copyright-protected music content was "present and available" for streaming or downloading on each of these six websites.
The crackdown was part of ongoing efforts by the DoJ and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) t...
A paid subscription is required to read more.
Log in below, or UPGRADE / SUBSCRIBE.
The Minshull Street Crown Court in Manchester, England has sentenced Michael Hornung to four years and six months imprisonment following conviction by a jury for selling and advertising unauthorised decoders.
Hornung was found to have operated his illegal business for over a three-year period between 2014 and 2017. The Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) alongside the Greater Manchester Police investigated in 2014 the activities of an online supplier of television set-top boxes which e...
A paid subscription is required to read more.
Log in below, or UPGRADE / SUBSCRIBE.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.