In May, it will be a year since the U.S. Supreme Court made the decisive ruling in the Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts Inc. v. Goldsmith case. This ruling was widely interpreted as a possible deterrent to creative endeavors as it established that Andy Warhol’s silkscreen prints of musician Prince, based on a photograph taken by Lynn Goldsmith, did not satisfy the first “fair use” factor sought in copyright disputes and was therefore an infringement on Goldsmith’s copyright.
Over the nearly one year since this ruling, there have been seven subsequent decisions related to “fair use” copyright cases. While these decisions have provided some clarifying insights, they don’t appear to indicate a dramatic shift from the prevailing precedents in similar instances of copyright dispute.
Despite some initial concerns that the Warhol v. Goldsmith ruling would see an upheaval of established trends in “fair use” case law, its midterm review offers a more nuanced perspective. The developments over the past year do not indicate a radical departure from previously established precedent.
Read the analysis by Jose Sariego at Bilzin Sumberg on these developments, including an in-depth look at the seven decisions since the landmark Warhol v. Goldsmith case here.