Andy Warhol estate preemptively sues photographer over infringement claims

Comparing the photo to the paintings, it's obvious that Andy Warhol did, in fact, copy the photograph ("drew inspiration from" is apparently another way of saying that he traced it).

However, this lawsuit seems way too late.

The main problem with the Warhol interpretation is that it is NOT 100% a drawing. It is the original photo, Photoshopped, then adding some lines and decoration. You can still see the original photo.

Let's take the Wharhol paintings and transform them into to a "new" piece of artwork and see if the foundation is OK with that.

Warhol was essentially a rip-off artist and this is little more that a bunch of Saul Goodman characters finding new ways to line their already bulging pockets. It's Lynn Goodman's original work, simple as that.

Andy Warhol, the Paris Hilton of 'art'.

It's funny that the Warhol Foundation is essentially making self-contradictory arguments in this case. First they say that Warhol made so many changes to the photo that his work is profoundly transformative and thus protected by fair use. At the same time, they say the Warhol version is so obviously a copy of Goldsmith's photo that any reasonable person would have immediately noticed the infringement / copying when it was first published in 1984, so it's too late to complain later.

Warhol was a hack. A pretender. And now, apparently, a thief.

Gotta protect the gravy Train, eh Warhol beneficiaries?

I hope Goldsmith wins big.

I have not read the posts (yet!) but I do have a prediction: multiple deep thinkers will post that unless you are a lawyer you should not post an opinion. Anyone who is not a lawyer familiar with the complete facts of this case should not have an opinion. This sage advice makes for a riveting forum. Keep your opinions to yourself unless you are an expert! Just kidding. I like reading the different takes even if they don't come from David Boies. That is what a forum is all about.

The Warhol Foundation is doing what is in it's best interest and that is understandable. I can't really blame Lynn Goldsmith for speaking out. I relate it to painted portraits inspired/based on photographs. Often an artist can add something that isn't in the photo. Are portrait sittings less common now?

Anyway I look forward to the many posts because this is a photography forum. Will many side with the Warhol camp? I would expect a natural bias here for Lynn Goldsmith but we'll have to see!

In the future, everyone will be litigious for fifteen minutes.

A lot depends on what actually happened. If the work was derived from her photo, there is a case to be made. If the work is derived from a different photo that is stylistically similar, her claims are more difficult to prove.

Even if they outright used the photo and would otherwise be infringing, the argument to be made by the A.W. team is that through their manipulations, at some point, so little of the original photo remains that the value of the new work is not in its derivation from the original.

For example, if you take a photocopy of a photocopy and repeat this process, the original image will be lost, and no reasonable person would deduce the final copy was related to the original. Or if you took the original and applied a heavy-handed Gaussian blur. This process of attenuating the original work is a continuum. So at what point is the original work lost?

Her argument will be her right is to control permissible uses, not the subjective outcomes of that use.

Andy Warhol wasn't the first nor the last artist to use appropriated material for his work. The idea of 'appropriation art' has been mainstream for generations, and is generally accepted as legitimate artistic expression. Check out:
Barbara Kruger, Richard Prince, Sigmar Polke, Richard Pettibone, Wang Guangyi, ...and many more.
Then there is the question of using photographic archives in work that re-positions commonly owned photographs within a different context. Most museums and galleries have used public archives to create 'cultural' or 'societal' exhibits.
Then what about using other's ideas? How much art references other peoples work? Most of it I think.
In other words, This nonsense from Lynn Goldsmith and the Andy Warhol Trust has everything to do with money, and nothing to do with art. The lawyers must be rubbing their hands, and ordering car brochures.

Artists centered on lawsuits. This is the end of art. Welcome to the new era of lawyer-approved "creativity".

Warhol's "art" is junk art.

Since I am a photographer who met, Lynn Goldsmith, and photographed Andy Warhol.
It give me an excuse to comment. The AW work of Prince, may be a new creation, but
the question is, "Did A.W. use the photo of, Price, by Goldsmith, for the work.
The person who actually made, "The new creation", was/should be a man named, Ronnie, who worked with A.W. The term, "Inspired by", is often a good excuse
to copy.

My question is: How much money, does, L.G., want for the infringement. And, why is the A.W. Foundation sueing her, first. I think it is because the A.W. lawyers need the work or see an "Attack Defense" as a good way of trying to frighten L.G. Or they want to use this because they know many other works by A.W. can have similar problems. Lawyers often like to say, "No" and litigate cases to make money or keep involved in the work of the foundation.

lame..

Surely if they really thought there was no copyright issue they wouldn't be asking for the statute of limitations to apply?

... and how many of Andy Warhol "works" are based on stolen ideas, photographs taken by somebody else etc.? :( :(

The issue as I see it is this: Ms. Goldsmith does not know what was i nthe contract between Warhol and Vanity Fair. She licensed the image to Vanity Fair for use but not to Warhol, inc. I doubt very seriously that Warhol signed a work for hire agreement with Vanity Fair or it's publisher Conde- Nast. What might be the case (and this would come out in discovery) are the terms of the Warhol contract with Conde-Nast.

Which brings us to a more pertinent question: Did Warhol use his commission from Conde-Nast as a way of getting around having to license a portrait of Prince and also to avoid getting Prince's permission to use his likeness for commercial purposes beyond the editorial use ?

It's an interesting case. I'd like to see the photographer compensated. Very cynical of the foundation to sue. Unsure if Prince has sat and modeled for this or it's a concert shot, but it really doesn't matter. It's her professional work, and he's adapted it and modified it, but his artwork depends entirely on the use of the original for its impact. Perhaps she should screenprint his signature, blow it up and sell T-shirts with it - I'm sure the foundation would sue straight away. It's like copying a Frank Lloyd Wright building design but painting it blue and shrinking it by 5% and being surprised that you didn't win an architecture award, never understood the appeal of the great "adapted and adopted it" brigade.

The whole of 'pop' art seems to be based on celebrity more than anything. Marcel DuChamp proved you could attach your signature to an ordinary urinal and proclaim it as 'art', originality be damned. This is why the Warholians are making a preemptive strike. They know they can be seen as standing on thin ice.

I read the article but I'm still unclear as to exactly what the Warhol Foundation is suing for. Annoyance? Frivolity? Did the Warhol Foundation sue itself on Goldsmith's behalf in order to, (hopefully), win a favorable outcome?

No matter. It seems the heart of the matter is Art, (big "A"), vs commodity. It's my non-law degreed artist understanding that an artist can use copyrighted material in the creation of a unique piece of Art, (big "A"). An artist, (or anyone else, ie, foundation), can not then subsequently commoditize that artwork, (little "a"), by selling reproductions on prints, coffee mugs, t-shirts, etc, without being in violation of copyright issues.

cont....

Who's Andy Warhol?

I hope she prevails because Warhol was a talentless parasite. All of his 'great works' - Elvis, Marilyn, the electric chair - depend for their impact on the artistic quality of the original photographs he used and reproduced essentially unchanged. His contributions - swathes of flat colour - add nothing.

Dontcha just love all the armchair lawyers and judges in this forum that have all the answers, probably without doing anything other than reading the half-baked summary of the posting?

I suspect this is a pre-emptive move by Andy Warhol's estate to silence any potential future copyright violations. He had tons of students and assistants, probably didn't even look much at his later stuff, just signed whatever they produced, and if they didn't feel inspired, who know what else they copied. If Lynn Goldsmith is vindicated in her claims, this could potentially unravel into something ugly for the Warhol estate. Big money is at stake.

If you sample a song and use that to make a new song, you have to pay a royalty.

I don't see this being any different.

And if as said below, she gave permission then I don't see she has a case either. If she didn't give permission, that's different...

This is ridiculous. If Lynn Goldsmith took the picture, Warhol was the infractor. That'd be true in any part of the world except in the US, where this kind of appropriation of someone else's work is ruled to be lawful.
Back in 1983, Jon Savage wrote an interesting article for 'The Face' about this illegitimate use of someone else's work. Its title is "The Age of Plunder".
http://www.academia.edu/5947389/Jon_Savage_the_Age_of_Plunder

This seems like an almost exact reprise of Shepard Fairey's preemptive lawsuit against The Associated Press on his use of their photo in the iconic Obama "Hope" poster of 2008:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster

Hmmm...I am going to contact the Andy Warhol Foundation to set up a date, so I can go and take pictures of some of Mr. Warhol other works, draw some inspiration and give them a very creative tweak in Photoshop, in order to create an entirely new - and therefore infringement-free - image.