Talk:Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith

Many of the references on this page are inaccurate. Read with caution. Best refer to the court papers for a full understanding of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Literaryboy55 (talk • contribs)
 * The only issue is also a mistake at the Orange Prince page... that the 1984 BF article used an image that was not the Orange Prince, but one that was a orange bg with purple coloring. Orange Prince and the rest of the series came later. Also we cannot use court documents as references outside of final decisions. --M asem (t) 19:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a complex case. We should be mindful not to quote sources - mainly media articles - reporting on the case which casually get facts and nuance wrong. The court documents issued present opinions but there is agreement between each side relating some of the facts that frame this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warholresearcher (talk • contribs) 08:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We are supposed to use media sources, not court documents, for sourcing. Court documents are primary sources here, while the media ones are secondary. And in this case we're heavily resting on the NYTimes' legal coverage which is top notch. There will likely be law articles well after the SCOTUS case is done and then we can use those but they won't be around for a while. --M asem (t) 12:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The rule you talk about above Masem about only using media articles is a little shaky. In effect you are saying that is only possible to include opinion cited in the court documents that has been filtered through the lens of a media source, such as a newspaper. Well, we all agree I am sure how unbiased news reporting can be. Also, your blind faith in the NYT is quaint to say the least. As much as I trust some media sources compared to others, most of what I have read about this case is factually incorrect. This is why you and other contributors have got things wrong in background and arguments of this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintandrewz (talk • contribs) 19:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well for example when they have a fact we can clear verify as wrong like the 2016 being a Condé Nast branded work and not a Vanity Fair one (which is a relatively minor detail), that we can make sure is corrected. But we otherwise should avoid using court documents other that the court decisions for any sourcing because those do not have any assured reliability filters compared to mainstream works. Courts themselves will work out what is fact from the filings so we can use decisions to some degree but in terms of presenting rational and reasoning, we definitely need to let third parties pick these out for us, and not try to evaluate ourselves. --M asem (t) 20:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"In a 7-2 decision the Court ruled that Warhol's use of Goldsmith's photographs was not protected by fair use "
This is completely incorrect! The case was not about anything Warhol did but about what the Warhol Foundation did. Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have fixed that to be clear it was AWF's issue. M asem (t) 16:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the Warhol Foundation did not create them; Warhol did before he died. So while it's technically true that it was about what the AWF did with the photo, the clear implication is that the entire Prince Series is retroactively an infringement. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the ruling very explicitly states that it does not say anything about whether or not the original Prince Series was an infringement.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Overreliance on court decision/opinion statements
The court decisions and opinions are all first-party sources, and we should not be using them as the only source for quotes and analysis of the decisions - that's Original Research to determine what is important and we are not legal experts to be able to make that decision. We need to stick to what is reported through secondary sources. It is fine to include the revelent part of the decision as a subservient citation to a secondary source, but we should not be starting from the decisions to be writing the bulk of text on those anaylses. M asem (t) 12:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I have added more secondary sources (law review article summations). Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)