u/dty6

u/lonewulf

u/basedcitizen

SUPREME COURT vs WARHOL ESTATE

There is an upcoming Supreme Court case that could cripple the modern art scene that Warhol built (of perverts).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-debates-warhol-copyright-case-with-broad-implications-for-art-pop-culture/ar-AA12SHNA

Weirdly, doesn't what Warhol do remind you of NFTs?

The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared to wrestle with a case pitting Andy Warhol's foundation against a rock 'n' roll photographer who claims the American pop artist violated her copyright by basing one of his colorful silkscreens on an image she captured in 1981 of the musician Prince.

Did the big NFT push that had many leftists screaming "that NFTs are evil" just cause them to indirectly call what Warhol did as evil? I feel like they duped them.

Warhol's foundation asserts the artwork falls under the fair use doctrine, which permits reproduction of copyrighted material without permission in some circumstances, such as for criticism. The silkscreen, the foundation says, qualifies because it was transformative

But the photographer, Lynn Goldsmith, counters that such a standard would make copyright "completely unworkable," in part because it would ask judges to assess the meaning of a derivative artwork and whether it is transformative enough to be legal.

Was the whole NFT thing about these "artists" desperately trying to fend off this ruling?

"How is a court to determine the message or meaning of works of art, like a photograph or a painting?" Associate Justice Samuel Alito asked the lawyer representing Warhol, at one point wondering how Warhol himself might have explained that meaning and how it differed from Goldsmith's. "You make it sound simple, but maybe it's not so simple.

The pedo art world is shitting a brick over this.

They're scared to death of how the SC will rule on this. Warhol's foundation may have to hand over billions to the photographers whose images he used without compensating them.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/andy-warhol-prince-at-center-stage-in-supreme-court-case/

Andy Warhol and Prince held center stage in a copyright case before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that veered from Cheerios and “Mona Lisa” analogies to Justice Clarence Thomas’ enthusiasm for the “Purple Rain” showman.

The case affects artists, authors, filmmakers, museums and movie studios. Some amount of copying is acceptable under the law as “fair use,” while larger scale appropriation of a work constitutes copyright infringement.

Thinks of the billions the copyright owners would be owed by the pedo art world.

Justice Samuel Alito asked about a copy of the “Mona Lisa” in which the color of her dress was changed. Justice Amy Coney Barrett used “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy and its movie adaptation as an example, as well as a box of Cheerios cereal, making an analogy to famous Warhol images of Campbell’s Soup cans. The television shows “Happy Days” and “Mork & Mindy” were also cited.

Warhol used it to create portraits of Prince in the same style he had created well-known portraits of Marilyn Monroe, Jacqueline Kennedy and Mao Zedong. He cropped the image, resized it and changed the tones and lighting. Then he added his signature bright colors and hand-drawn outlines.

Sounds like NFTs in a lot of ways. They were almost mocking what Warhol did.

He took someone else's photo (did not compensate or ask permission to use their photo), then cropped it and tweaked it a little and called it his own.

What a shitty "artists".

“Lets say that I’m both a Prince fan, which I was in the ‘80s,” he said, and fan of Syracuse University, whose athletic teams are the Syracuse Orange. “And I decide to make one of those big blowup posters of Orange Prince and change the colors a little bit around the edges and put ’Go Orange’ underneath.” Thomas said he would wave the poster around at games and would market it “to all my Syracuse buddies.”

Martinez implied he could sue and Thomas would lose.

Groups urging the justices to side with Goldsmith include the Biden administration, the organization that owns the copyrights to the works of Dr. Seuss, The Recording Industry Association of America and Jane Ginsburg, an intellectual property expert and daughter of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Warhol foundation’s supporters include the foundations of two other prominent artists, Robert Rauschenberg and Roy Lichtenstein.

Interesting.

The decision is expected to be released in June, 2023