Supreme Court Rules Against Andy Warhol in Copyright Case

In a 7-2 decision, SCOTUS ruled in favor of photographer Lynn Goldsmith in her suit against the Andy Warhol Foundation for using her image of Prince without being compensated.

Interestingly, Justice Elena Kagan, one of the 'liberal' justices dissented, saying:

“It will impede new art and music and literature,” she wrote. “It will thwart the expression of new ideas and the attainment of new knowledge. It will make our world poorer.” ---from The New York Times.

As a photographer I'm happy with the decision.

HAND.

Thank you.

As a photographer, I can't imagine what I would do I weren't allowed to photograph any buildings without getting sued by the architects.

It would be the sale of the images without the building owners' permission that is illegal.

I guess the court did not see it as a transformative work. I agree with the finding in principle.

Do buildings hold a copyright?

A ridiculous decision in my opinion. As one of the dissenting judges said, "It will make our world poorer".

I was just wondering aloud if the OP is against photographs of buildings since he is against paintings of photographs, and he has answered my question.

Nobody sold copies of the artwork.
Only the first was commissioned on an already paid picture.
The others remained in his private collection till his death.

( that's my understanding of what happened )

ROFL!!

The original sale was for a one time use. Warhol made a second version using the photograph a second time, for which Ms. Goldsmith was not compensated.

Maybe sombody might inform Justice Kagan that Mr Warhol could have taken the shot himself and then manipulate his own photograph. That would have been the way forward for a true artistic endeavour. I have always considered Warhol as being massively overrated master of hype.

[deleted]

I believe he was hired by a magazine which asked him to use the same image.

I don't remember the name of the magazine.

Well, their decisions are opinions.

That's what they tell you but their decisions predictably fall along party lines. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....

They are supposed to be based on the law, not on their moral views. The justice is free to run for congress and try to shape the law in a way reflecting her view of what is right or wrong.

I used to live near his museum and saw his work frequently. You're not wrong in your assessment and I believe he openly admitted something like that when talking about his appreciation of Duchamp's Fountain. He didn't really do much anyone else was incapable of doing, he just sold himself as something to be desired, the same as any good salesmen.