That Warhol Case

[Bartc]

So open for your opinions on the Warhol case before the Supreme Court. Of course hard and fast lines are hard to "draw" when talking about derivations from prior works, especially since themes, compositions, and subjects have always been considered a legit source - even an honored one in some cultures - to copy for learning or creating.

To my view this one should go to the original photographer, same as I personally think Lichtenstein blatantly stole his stuff. But that's a personal opinion. As to the contention that Van Gogh appropriated from Millet, that's very true, only it wasn't copyrighted work at the time, I believe. But I do agree that Warhol isn't stealing the Campbell's soup can image, any more than your painting the Golden Gate Bridge would be (or pick your own bridge or landmark or commonly visible item.) It is complicated after all!

And display (as in museum) is different from "sale", though you could argue that display in an exhibit catalogue is definitely sale.

See what you think: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/01/arts/design/warhol-prince-goldsmith-museums.html

 

[Artyczar]

Complicated indeed. I can't even tell if Warhol himself did this artwork (from Lynn Goldsmith's photo), not that it should matter in this case actually. But what year was the photo taken and when was it embellished like this? This doesn't even make sense to me. I'm so confused. It's an older photo of Prince, so it could have been created when Andy was alive? I'm not even sure. I probably need to go back and re-read this article with a magnifying glass!

But what is your question exactly? I lean in Goldsmith's corner 100%. It's her photo and she licensed it for a ONE-TIME use. Period. End of story. What is the discrepancy? I don't get it. That would have been in writing.

As for Lichtenstein, I think he went way beyond appropriation and ripped off DC comics. If he made the art more his own, maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but it was so bad. He could have made a hundred changes before putting his signature on it, in my opinion. I can't remember if DC Comics sued him or not. I'm uninformed/naive on that one.

I totally agree with you on the Van Gogh thing and the Campbell's soup can, Bart.

 

[Bartc]

New York Times ran a piece that's an interactive quiz on copyright infringement cases. But you have to be a subscriber, so I'm not reprinting it here. I got all but one right. It's damn complicated and ultimately up to a judge it appears.

I don't know why Lichtenstein didn't simply make up his own comic images in comic book style. Could have done it so easily. Instead he just blatantly stole them then sold them. Not kosher in my book.

I have no question here, just throwing it open for discussion. It relates to the AI vs. ART discussion too. And it's high time that copyright laws caught up with the technology.

 

[Bongo]

If I'm reading the article correctly, it's a little more nuanced == Warhol was licensed the Goldsmith's photo of Prince for "one-time" use.
Warhol then used the "licensed" photo to make his silk screen variation. THEN in 2016 the Warhol foundation licensed their Warhol-Prince-Variation to Conde Nast(a publishing company) to use as a magazine cover.

Goldsmith is arguing you can't do that because permission to use her photo was only granted to Warhol for "one-time" use, the sale to Conde Nast would be a second use. The Warhol Foundation is arguing that Goldsmith's photo was not sold to Conde Nast - but the Warhol-variation, which in their view is significantly different than the one-time-use photo they had licensed from Goldsmith.

 

[Bartc]

Bongo, don't forget that another part of the argument the foundation is using (I think, but ain't no lawyer) is that the work was significantly changed in all this processing so that it's not the same image, though similar. It's pretty hard to make that case, to my eyes.

 

[Bongo]

it's even a bit more complicated. Originally Conde Nast (a publishing company) paid Goldsmith $400. for one time use of an image referenced from her photo. Warhol made a series (of ten I think) variations for Conde Nast and they picked one to use as a cover for one of their magazines.

Then in 2016 Conde Nast paid Warhol foundation $10,000 to use one of the other Variations(that was based on the Goldsmith photo) for a magazine cover.

What's odd (to me) is that Goldsmith never went after Warhol for his Prince silkscreens UNTIL he licensed one to CondeNast in 2016.

 

[Bartc]

it's even a bit more complicated. Originally Conde Nast (a publishing company) paid Goldsmith $400. for one time use of an image referenced from her photo. Warhol made a series (of ten I think) variations for Conde Nast and they picked one to use as a cover for one of their magazines.

Then in 2016 Conde Nast paid Warhol foundation $10,000 to use one of the other Variations(that was based on the Goldsmith photo) for a magazine cover.

What's odd (to me) is that Goldsmith never went after Warhol for his Prince silkscreens UNTIL he licensed one to CondeNast in 2016.

Did she know? Or maybe she didn't know all he had done.

 

[stlukesguild]

As for Lichtenstein, I think he went way beyond appropriation and ripped off DC comics. If he made the art more his own, maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but it was so bad. He could have made a hundred changes before putting his signature on it, in my opinion. I can't remember if DC Comics sued him or not. I'm uninformed/naive on that one.

From what I have seen of Lichtenstein's comic book-derived paintings he was quite savvy in avoiding images gleaned from DC, Marvel, Disney, or other companies with deep pockets. Most of his paintings used images taken from war and romance-themed comics that lacked the wherewithal to engage in expensive lawsuits... let alone the interest. Unfortunately, this means that the original comic artists who were poorly paid to start with saw none of the millions that Lichtenstein made from their images.

 

[Bongo]

Did she know? Or maybe she didn't know all he had done.

Imo Warhol foundation was unwise to challenge Goldsmith's claim.. For $10, 000 they should have just let it lie. Now instead of it being about Conde Nast violation of the one-time restriction, Warhol Foundation made it about copyright protection.

 

[Bongo]

As for Lichtenstein, I think he went way beyond appropriation and ripped off DC comics. If he made the art more his own, maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but it was so bad. He could have made a hundred changes before putting his signature on it, in my opinion. I can't remember if DC Comics sued him or not. I'm uninformed/naive on that one.

From what I have seen of Lichtenstein's comic book-derived paintings he was quite savvy in avoiding images gleaned from DC, Marvel, Disney, or other companies with deep pockets. Most of his paintings used images taken from war and romance-themed comics that lacked the wherewithal to engage in expensive lawsuits... let alone the interest. Unfortunately, this means that the original comic artists who were poorly paid to start with saw none of the millions that Lichtenstein made from their images.

One possible reason the comics didn't sue - there are hundreds and hundreds of examples where comic artists blatantly swiped from each other. Very obvious when the images are put side by side.

 

[john]

I've wondered whether infringing on a copyright and being sued for it would bring fame and fortune. Or at least some attention.

For instance, a painting of Ronald McDonald as the firing squad in that Goya painting. A statement on the health effects of fast food.