User:2ndAlphaMath/sandbox

Andy Warhol Found., Inc. v. Goldsmith, Lynn, et al. is a pending case before the United States Supreme Court concerning whether a series of screen prints of the musician Prince by the artist Andy Warhol based on photographs taken by Lynn Goldsmith constitutes an infringement of the latter's copyright.

Background
In 1981, on assignment for Newsweek, Lynn Goldsmith took a series of photographs of Prince, whom she posed under strong lighting to show off his bone structure and to whom she applied eye-shadow and lip gloss. She later licensed out one of the black-and-white photographs of Prince to Vanity Fair through her limited company, Lynn Goldsmith, Ltd. The license specified the issue and manner in which the photograph could be displayed and required the magazine to include an attribution to her. Vanity Fair also commissioned Andy Warhol to create an illustration of Prince for the same article. Both Goldsmith's photo and Warhol's illustration were printed in the magazine, alongside an article about Prince, with Goldsmith being credited for the "source photograph" of Warhol's work.

Warhol later went on to his create Prince Series, a series of 16 works all based on Goldsmith's photograph. Ownership of the works comprising the series were passed along to the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts (AWF) after the artist's death. Although many of the pieces are no longer in AWF's possession, the foundation licenses out images of Warhol's work for use in museums and publications. In 2016, after Prince's death, Condé Nast, the parent company of Vanity Fair, asked AWF to allow them to use one of the Prince Series works in an upcoming Prince tribute. AWF agreed, and Condé Nast published the tribute with the image without giving credit to Goldsmith.

Goldsmith contacted AWF to notify them of the perceived copyright infringement and later registered her original photograph with the U.S. Copyright Office. AWF sued Goldsmith and Lynn Goldsmith, Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to declare the Prince Series fair use. Goldsmith countersued for copyright infringement.

District Court
The district court held that Warhol's works were indeed protected by fair use. In deciding, Judge John G. Koeltl relied on a four-pronged test:
 * 1) The purpose and character of the use
 * 2) The nature of the copyrighted work
 * 3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
 * 4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

"The Prince Series works can reasonably be perceived to have transformed Prince from a vulnerable, uncomfortable person to an iconic, larger-than-life figure."