Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith
382 F. Supp. 3d 312
S.D. Ill.2019Background
- Photographer Lynn Goldsmith took a December 3, 1981 studio portrait of Prince (the "Goldsmith Photograph"); Vanity Fair licensed one image from the shoot in 1984 "for use as an artist's reference."
- Andy Warhol produced a 16-work "Prince Series" (one piece ran in the November 1984 Vanity Fair article), and AWF now owns and licenses those works; Warhol's series is visually distinct (silkscreened, colored, cropped versions of Prince's head).
- Goldsmith sued AWF (counterclaim) asserting Warhol copied and infringed her copyright; AWF sought declaratory judgment of noninfringement and raised fair use and statute-of-limitations defenses.
- Key disputed facts conceded for summary judgment: AWF did not dispute access/probative similarity for purposes of copying, but contested substantial similarity and invoked fair use.
- The Court concluded the Prince Series is protected by fair use and dismissed Goldsmith's infringement claim; AWF's summary judgment motion was granted and Goldsmith's denied.
Issues
| Issue | Goldsmith's Argument | AWF's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Warhol's Prince Series infringes Goldsmith's copyright via substantial similarity/copying | Warhol copied Goldsmith's photograph and the Prince Series preserves the photograph's core/protectible elements | Warhol's works are not substantially similar in protected elements and are materially different | Court relied on fair use and did not need to resolve substantial-similarity fully; infringement claim dismissed on fair-use grounds |
| Whether the Prince Series is transformative (first fair-use factor) | Warhol merely reproduced Goldsmith's photograph to achieve his effect; not sufficiently transformative | The works change expression, meaning, and aesthetics (crop, color, flattening) and present Prince as an icon — thus transformative | Court: Prince Series are transformative as a matter of law; first factor strongly favors AWF |
| Application of the remaining fair-use factors (nature of work; amount/substantiality; market effect) | Goldsmith: photograph is creative and unpublished; Warhol used the heart/essence and harmed licensing markets | AWF: unpublished status and creativity are diminished by transformative use; Warhol removed most protectible elements and did not usurp Goldsmith's markets | Court: factor two (nature) neutral; factor three (amount/substantiality) strongly favors AWF because few protectible elements remain; factor four (market effect) favors AWF — overall fair use for AWF |
| Timeliness (statute of limitations for alleged past copying) | Goldsmith argued discovery rule and focused on AWF's 2016 licensing as timely infringement | AWF argued any copying decades earlier is time-barred; 2016 Condé Nast license is within limitations | Court noted earlier alleged reproductions (decades old) are likely time-barred; Goldsmith's claim based on the 2016 license was timely, but the claim was dismissed on fair-use grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (defining transformative use and fair-use framework)
- Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (market harm and fair-use analysis)
- Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir.) (artistic appropriation and transformative-use analysis)
- Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC, 766 F.3d 756 (7th Cir.) (parody/transformative use of photograph and third-factor analysis)
- Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir.) (summary judgment on fair use where facts undisputed)
- Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir.) (copyright protection for photographic expression)
- Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884) (photographs as copyrightable works)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary-judgment standard)