Supreme Court United States of America This Thursday has become the epicenter of an event. earthquake it shakes world art and what can you get unpredictable consequences in the future of creation. Seven of the nine judges of the Supreme Court decided to do so. Andy Warhol infringed the copyright of photographer Lynn Goldsmith By using and transforming an image that Prince took. This Two judges showing their disagreement With the decision, they expressed their opinion by “refusing to recognize i”.The importance of the converter copyCourt today and for the first time, turn your back on how creativity works”.
In the middle of the capsized vault “fair use” or “legitimate” policy when there is a transformative result that “adds something new with a different purpose or character, replacing the first with a new expression, meaning or message”, or has for decades legally managed the use of other people’s material for critical use, or for Information, a successful music photographer Goldsmith’s Prince There is a portrait of .
When the musician released ‘Purple Rain’ in 1984, the magazine “Showdown Fair” hired Warhol to create a work to accompany an article. The publication paid Goldsmith $400 to allow the image to be used as an “artist reference” and also agreed to credit it and use it only in one issue. And Warhol himself usual way of working As an artist, he created 16 paintings derived from the original and later the magazine published one of them.
But when Prince died in 2016, ‘Vanity Fair’ paid $10,250 to the Warhol Foundation, which manages the deceased artist’s estate in 1987, to use another image from the Prince series. Later Goldsmith did not receive compensation or credit. and gone courts.
for and against
At the first court hearing the case a judge ruled in Warhol’s favormaking sure you create something with a new and new meaning. three judges one Supreme Courtagain, they rejected their decision and argued that the first judge should not “take the role of art critic and seek the purpose or meaning of works” at the center of the case, and that “judges are not normally trained to make aesthetic judgments because these perceptions subjective in nature”.
So the case came Sublime, where numerous voices from the art world criticize the appeals court. For example, the Brooklyn Museum offered a summary assuring that the second sentence “hits the heart of the ways artists today have grown to make and understand art.” court of appeal”disparaging art that borrows, owns, or copies previous work as something comparable plagiarism wave exploitation“His laments and warnings reached deaf ears. The majority decision assures that Goldsmith’s “original work” is “deserved” like those of other photographers. copyright protection even against famous artists”. Meanwhile, Judge Elena Kagan and Supreme Court President John Roberts, in their dissenting petitions, stated that their colleagues’ decision was “”stifle all forms of creativity, will hinder new art, music and literature; It will prevent the expression of new ideas and the acquisition of new knowledge. It will make our world poorer‘ they finish.