Appeals Court Rules Andy Warhol Foundation Broke Copyright Laws in Use of Celeb Photographer’s Prince Photograph
Celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith is probably partying like it’s still 1999. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a controversial 2019 New York Federal Court’s ruling that the Andy Warhol Foundation’s usage of Goldsmith’s copyrighted Prince photograph was legal.
The high-profile photographer to the stars won her copyright lawsuit on appeal. Her attorneys argued that The Andy Warhol Foundation did not have permission to use her 1981 iconic Prince photo.
Goldsmith also founded LGL, the first agency focusing upon celebrity photographs that also includes over two hundred artists besides her own work. LGL was a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit.
This case dates back to when Warhol, who died in 1987, used Goldsmith’s Prince photograph to design his own “Prince Series” while using Goldsmith’s copyrighted photo.
The famous photos of Prince were taken in 1981 when Warhol enjoyed worldwide success, using photographs of iconic celebrities and then creating multiple images of them using highlights of neon colors.
Icons such as deceased subjects like Marylin Monroe, Jackie Kennedy, and Elvis Presley were reimagined by Warhol as pop art, with groups of each celebrity’s portraits highlighted by splashes of colors. Contemporary celebrities, including Michael Jackson, Debbie Harry, and many more, vied to have their images created by Andy Warhol.
Judge Gerard E. Lynch wrote that the appeals court agreed with Goldsmith, saying, “The Prince Series works are substantially similar to the Goldsmith Photograph as a matter of law.”
Court papers state the lawsuit concerns a series of Andy Warhol silkscreens plus pencil illustrations by Warhol of Prince.
As court papers state, the Prince Series by Warhol used the photograph Goldsmith took “in her studio, and in which she holds copyright. The photographs were for an assignment for Newsweek but were never published. In 1984, Goldsmith’s agency, Defendant-Appellant Lynn Goldsmith, Ltd. (“LGL”), known as Lynn Goldsmith, Inc., licensed the photograph to Vanity Fair magazine for use as an artist reference. Unbeknownst to Goldsmith, that artist was Warhol.”
Goldsmith was unaware of Warhol’s usage of her photograph. The popular magazine Vanity Fair commissioned Warhol to create more than one version of the Prince silkscreen in a series that included another fifteen additional artworks.
Goldsmith did not have any knowledge of this until 2016 after Prince died suddenly. Goldsmith and LGL then sued The Andy Warhol Foundation.
After Prince’s death, Goldsmith notified the Andy Warhol Foundation of the “perceived violation” of her copyright for the Prince Series photo.
In response, The Andy Warhol Foundation sued Goldsmith for a “declaratory judgment that the Prince Series works were non-infringing or, in the alternative, that they made fair use of Goldsmith’s photograph.”
The photographer then countersued The Andy Warhol Foundation for infringement of her copyrighted work.
In the first lawsuit in 2017, The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (John G. Koeltl, J.) agreed with The Andy Warhol Foundation, granting a summary judgment on its “assertion of fair use and dismissed Goldsmith and LGL’s counterclaim with prejudice.”
In the new current appeal, Goldsmith’s attorney successfully argued that the district court was wrong in the initial assessment and application of “the four fair-use factors."
The four fair-use factors used in legal cases concern artwork. These four factors include: the purpose and character of its use, the nature of any copyrighted work, the amount of substantiality of the portion used and the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the work.
The appeal courts’ ruling agrees that the prior court did not assess the fair use factors appropriately, noting, “Goldsmith and LGL contend that the district court erred in its assessment and application of the four fair-use factors. In particular, they argue that the district court’s conclusion that the Prince Series works are transformative was grounded in a subjective evaluation of the works' underlying artistic message rather than an objective assessment of their purpose and character. We agree. We further agree that the district court’s error in analyzing the first factor was compounded in its analysis of the remaining three factors.”
With the appeals court reversing judgment to now favor Goldsmith, The Warhol Foundation announced they plan to appeal the ruling.
