Talk:Orange Prince (1984)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 12 June 2016 by reviewer Robert McClenon (talk · contribs).

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Copyright case[edit]

No info about the Goldsmith copyright case? --2001:FB1:3B:D0FB:60C1:15D:C108:F8FD (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is there now, after the appellate court decision Mastimido (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The decision of the Supreme Court MUST be included. The reaction within the artistic community has been vocal and hostile to the Court decision and extremely supportive of the dissent by Justice Kagan joined by Chief Justice Roberts. --Will (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, other legal scholars have pointed out how narrow the decision is, only because the one print was used commercially; Gorsuch said that if the print were only displayed in museums, fair use would have favored the foundation. Masem (t) 02:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gorsuch played a clever hand, transferring the question from appropriation for expressive purpose to a question of "use where," admitting that used elsewhere the appropriation might have been acceptable. Kagan's argument sought to force the court to see use of the appropriation in the context of a cultural, critical, art historical "moment," as it were. Messy. And important. Right now let me say simply that omission of any mention of the Kegan (Roberts) dissent detracts from the fullness of treatment of the case, the arguments and the divided decision. Will (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have a full article dedicated to the decision (which covers Gorsuch's and Kagan's opinions too); what gets in here should summarize 1) what happens now with the Foundation (assuming that appeals affirms now) and 2) input from copyright and legal experts that frame the decision to the larger world (which is a split set of opinions in how narrow or broad this may be). Masem (t) 04:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is news to me. I will look, but if you have a chance reply and give me the title of the article. Thank you. Will (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its right there at the start of the section about the copyright issue. Standoff line for the link to the case. Masem (t) 12:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found it Will (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use[edit]

Shouldn't the Fair Use section at least mention the lawsuit? Of the universe (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]