The long-standing legal battle over copyright infringement between the Andy Warhol Foundation and photographer Lynn Goldsmith has finally come to a resolution. A joint court filing in the US District Court in Manhattan confirmed on Friday that the Warhol estate agreed to pay over $21,000, including $11,000 in legal fees, to settle the dispute that has been closely watched by the art world.
At the heart of the case was a 1981 photograph taken by Goldsmith of the musician Prince, commissioned for Newsweek but never used. Goldsmith retained the licensing rights for future use of the image. Three years later, the iconic “Purple Rain” album propelled Prince to superstardom, and Vanity Fair paid $400 to license Goldsmith’s photo for Warhol’s use as a reference for a screenprint.
Subsequently, Warhol created a series of artworks known as the “Prince Series,” based on Goldsmith’s photograph. When Prince passed away in 2016, one of Warhol’s Prince prints graced the cover of Condé Nast magazine’s tribute edition, leading to further contention between Goldsmith and the Warhol Foundation.
The case, which reached the US Supreme Court last year, had significant implications for the interpretation of “fair use” in copyright law. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favour of Goldsmith, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasizing the protection of photographers’ original works under copyright law, even against renowned artists like Warhol.
The doctrine of “fair use” allows limited appropriation of intellectual property for purposes such as scholarship and news reporting. The court’s decision underscored the importance of transformative use, requiring new expression, meaning, or message in the appropriated work. In this case, Warhol’s use of Goldsmith’s photograph was deemed not transformative, as both images served the same commercial purpose.
The Warhol Foundation, while settling the case, maintained its position that the original creation of the Prince Series constituted fair use. However, with the settlement, the foundation has withdrawn its lawsuit against Goldsmith.
The resolution of this landmark case brings attention to the complex intersection of art, commerce, and intellectual property rights. It underscores the need for careful consideration of copyright issues in the creation and distribution of artistic works.
Representatives for Goldsmith did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the settlement. However, the conclusion of this legal saga marks a significant moment in the ongoing dialogue surrounding copyright protection in the art world, reaffirming the rights of original creators and setting important precedents for future cases.