The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the late Andy Warhol infringed on a photographer’s copyright when he created a series of silk screens based on a photograph of the late singer Prince. The ruling was 7-2, with Justice Elena Kagan penning a stinging dissent and arguing that the opinion will “stifle creativity of every sort.
”The court rejected arguments made by a lawyer of the Andy Warhol Foundation (the artist died in 1987) that his work was sufficiently transformative so as not to trigger copyright concerns.
Frequent_Scholar_577 says
Love the legal system, such speed.
cnn says
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the late Andy Warhol infringed on a photographer’s copyright when he created a series of silk screens based on a photograph of the late singer Prince. The ruling was 7-2, with Justice Elena Kagan penning a stinging dissent and arguing that the opinion will “stifle creativity of every sort.
”The court rejected arguments made by a lawyer of the Andy Warhol Foundation (the artist died in 1987) that his work was sufficiently transformative so as not to trigger copyright concerns.
[https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/18/politics/supreme-court-prince-andy-warhol/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/18/politics/supreme-court-prince-andy-warhol/index.html)
Wstenev says
Scotus doing the work people care about. And they wonder why no one sees them as a valid institution anyway
Wynnero says
this could open a whole new can of Campbell’s worms
DavidGordonGreen says
They’re both dead
Khemith says
Two dead people having a legal battle. The machine of capitalism doesn’t need humans anymore
Optimal-Scientist233 says
They said the quiet part out loud.
The intent of regulation is aimed squarely at commerce, because the intention is to appropriate funds by legislative regulation.
In other words, it is the business of the government to collect taxation through regulation by legislation.
Alucard661 says
Didn’t the OBEY guy lose a lawsuit like this over the Obama poster?