Supreme Court considers whether an artist, movie maker or advertiser can freely use a copyrighted work by claiming they transformed the original.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday weighed a major copyright clash over Andy Warhol’s use of a photo of Prince, and appears divided on how far artists may go in freely using the work of others.
The case is being closely watched in the art and entertainment industries, which both rely on copyrights and also license copyrighted material for new works, such as films that are based on and adapted from novels.
During a lively back-and-forth argument, the justices sounded interested and engaged but divided on how to rule. At issue is whether and when an artist may use copyrighted material without paying a fee if his new work is “transformative” in its meaning and message.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts said Warhol’s work may qualify as new and transformative. His silkscreen portraits of Prince were new and quite different from the photos they were based on. His work was a “comment on modern society” and the impact of celebrity, he said.
Such a view, if adopted by the court, could decimate the photography industry, replied Washington attorney Lisa S. Blatt, who represents celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith. And it also damage the music, movie and publishing industries, she said.
It is too easy, she said, for artists, advertisters or others to rework a copyrighted work and claim they created something new.
