Supreme Court rules against Andy Warhol in Prince portrait copyright dispute

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the late Andy Warhol infringed on a photographer's copyright when he created a series of silk screens based on a photograph of the late singer Prince.

The ruling was 7-2.

The court rejected arguments made by a lawyer of the Andy Warhol Foundation -- the artist died in 1987 -- that his work was sufficiently transformative so as not to trigger copyright concerns.

Supreme Court/CBS News

The opinion has been closely anticipated by the global art world watching to see how the court would balance an artist's freedom to borrow from existing works and the restrictions of copyright law.

"Goldsmith's original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists. Such protection includes the right to prepare derivative works that transform the original," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion, referring to Lynn Goldsmith, the photographer at the center of the case.

RELATED: It's official: Using purple ink, Gov. Walz signs bill that renames stretch of highway after Prince

In a dissent from Justice Elena Kagan that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, the liberal justice wrote: "It will stifle creativity of every sort. It will impede new art and music and literature. It will thwart the expression of new ideas and the attainment of new knowledge. It will make our world poorer."

Central to the case was whether Warhol infringed on Goldsmith's copyright when he created a series of silk screens of the musician Prince. 

RELATED: Prince is still unforgettable 40 years later

At issue is the so-called "fair use" doctrine in copyright law that permits the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances.

In the case at hand, a district court ruled in favor of Warhol, basing its decision on the fact that the two works in question had a different meaning and message. But an appeals court reversed – ruling that a new meaning or message is not enough to qualify for fair use.

Read more
f

We and our partners use cookies to understand how you use our site, improve your experience and serve you personalized content and advertising. Read about how we use cookies in our cookie policy and how you can control them by clicking Manage Settings. By continuing to use this site, you accept these cookies.