`
`No. 21-869
`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`
`
`ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR THE VISUAL ARTS,
`INC.
`PETITIONER,
`
`v.
`
`LYNN GOLDSMITH AND LYNN GOLDSMITH, LTD.,
`RESPONDENTS.
`
`
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
`
`
`BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LISA S. BLATT
`Counsel of Record
`THOMAS G. HENTOFF
`SARAH M. HARRIS
`KIMBERLY BROECKER
`AARON Z. ROPER
`PATRICK REGAN*
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`680 Maine Avenue S.W.
`Washington, DC 20024
`(202) 434-5000
`lblatt@wc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` *
`
` Admitted in California and practicing law in the District of Co-
`lumbia pending application for admission to the D.C. Bar under
`the supervision of bar members pursuant to D.C. Court of Appeals
`Rule 49(c)(8).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`QUESTION PRESENTED
`Petitioner frames the question presented as follows:
`Whether a work of art is “transformative” when it
`conveys a different meaning or message from its source
`material (as this Court, the Ninth Circuit, and other courts
`of appeals have held), or whether a court is forbidden from
`considering the meaning of the accused work where it
`“recognizably deriv[es] from” its source material (as the
`Second Circuit has held).
`
`
`
`
`(I)
`
`
`
`II
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`STATEMENT ...................................................................... 1
`A. Goldsmith’s 1981 Portraits of Prince ..................... 4
`B. Andy Warhol’s 1984 Prince Series ......................... 9
`C. AWF’s 2016 License to Condé Nast ..................... 16
`D. Proceedings Below ................................................. 17
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT......................................... 20
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 23
`I. AWF’s Use of Goldsmith’s Photograph Was Not
`Transformative ............................................................. 23
`A. Transformative Uses Necessarily Borrow from
`the Original ............................................................. 23
`B. The Second Circuit Correctly Found No
`Transformativeness................................................ 30
`C. AWF’s Policy Concerns Are Illusory ................... 35
`II. AWF’s Test Would Upend Copyright ........................ 39
`A. Text, Precedent, History, Structure, and
`Purpose Refute AWF’s Test ................................. 39
`B. AWF’s Test Is Unworkable .................................. 51
`CONCLUSION .................................................................. 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases:
`Azar v. Allina Health Servs.,
`139 S. Ct. 1804 (2019) .............................................. 25
`Bloom v. Nixon, 125 F. 977 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1903) ....... 29
`Bouchat v. Balt. Ravens Ltd. P’ship,
`619 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2010) .................................... 36
`Bradbury v. Hotten, 42 Law J. Rep. 28 (1872) ........... 45
`Brown v. Davenport, 142 S. Ct. 1510 (2022) ............... 40
`Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony,
`111 U.S. 53 (1884) .............................................. 44, 45
`Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,
`510 U.S. 569 (1994)...........................................passim
`Campbell v. Scott, 59 Eng. Rep. 784 (1842) ................ 46
`Cariou v. Prince,
`714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013) ......................... 31, 34, 52
`Cary v. Kearsley, 170 Eng. Rep. 679 (1803) ............... 46
`City of Austin v. Reagan Nat’l Advert. of
`Austin, LLC, 142 S. Ct. 1464 (2022) ...................... 41
`Daly v. Palmer,
`6 F. Cas. 1132 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1868)........................ 46
`Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. ComicMix LLC,
`983 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................. 33, 37
`Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ....................... 50
`Falk v. Brett Lithographic Co.,
`48 F. 678 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1891) ................................ 44
`Falk v. Donaldson,
`57 F. 32 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1893) ........................... 43, 44
`Falk v. T.P. Howell & Co.,
`37 F. 202 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1888) ................................ 44
`Folsom v. Marsh,
`9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841) ..................passim
`
`
`
`
`
`IV
`
`Page
`
`Cases—continued:
`Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc.,
`141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021) ......................................passim
`Gray v. Russell,
`10 F. Cas. 1035 (C.C.D. Mass. 1839) ...................... 28
`Gross v. Seligman, 212 F. 930 (2d Cir. 1914) .............. 45
`Gyles v. Wilcox, 26 Eng. Rep. 489 (1740). ................... 47
`Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation
`Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985) ............................passim
`Hill v. Whalen & Martell, Inc.,
`220 F. 359 (S.D.N.Y. 1914) ...................................... 29
`Kirtsaeng v. Jon Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
`579 U.S. 197 (2016)................................................... 29
`Ringgold v. Black Ent. Television, Inc.,
`126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997) ....................................... 36
`Roworth v. Wilkes, 170 Eng. Rep. 889 (1807) ............. 28
`Sampson & Murdock Co. v. Seaver-Radford
`Co., 140 F. 539 (1st Cir. 1905) ................................. 46
`Sayre v. Moore, 102 Eng. Rep. 139 (1785) .................. 46
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios,
`Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) .................................... 26, 42
`Springer Lithographing Co. v. Falk,
`59 F. 707 (2d Cir. 1894) ........................................... 44
`Story v. Holcombe,
`23 F. Cas. 171 (C.C.D. Ohio 1847) .......................... 29
`Webb v. Powers,
`29 F. Cas. 511 (C.C.D. Mass. 1847) ........................ 28
`Whittingham v. Woller,
`36 Eng. Rep. 679 (1817)........................................... 29
`Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) .................... 50
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V
`
`Page
`
`Constitution and Statutes:
`U.S. Const., amend. I .............................................. 22, 50
`Act of Apr. 10, 1710, 8 Anne c. 19, art. I ...................... 46
`Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
`§ 101 .............................................................. 23, 40, 47
`§ 102 .......................................................................... 54
`§ 106 ........................................................ 23, 40, 47, 49
`§ 107 ..................................................................passim
`§ 109 .......................................................................... 36
`§ 115 .......................................................................... 51
`§ 503 .......................................................................... 37
`§ 507 .......................................................................... 18
`Other Authorities:
`The Andy Warhol Diaries
`(Pat Hackett ed., 1989) ..................................... 10, 38
`Andy Warhol, Negatives, Stanford Univ.,
`https://stanford.io/3PAUvFA ................................. 38
`Andy Warhol Museum, Andy Warhol’s
`Silkscreen Technique, YouTube
`(Sept. 26, 2017), https://bit.ly/3Qnjwnw................. 12
`Andy Warhol Museum, PowerPoint: Silkscreen
`Printing, https://bit.ly/38HwTPD ......................... 11
`AWF, Form 990-PF (Mar. 3, 2021),
`https://bit.ly/3oTy4Q7 .............................................. 15
`Roland Barthes, The Death of the Author (1967)....... 51
`Eric Braun, Prince (2017) ............................................... 4
`Martha Buskirk, The Contingent Object of
`Contemporary Art (2003) ....................................... 39
`CBS News, New Photography Book Captures
`the Rise of Legendary Band KISS
`(Dec. 16, 2017), https://cbsn.ws/3GicmgG ............... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`VI
`
`Page
`
`Other Authorities—continued:
`Eveline Chao, Stop Using My Song,
`Rolling Stone, July 8, 2015 ...................................... 49
`George Ticknor Curtis, Treatise on the Law of
`Copyright (1847) ...................................................... 29
`Alexandra Darraby, Darraby on Art Law
`§ 7:89 (July 2021 update)......................................... 47
`Patricia L. Dooley, Freedom of Speech (2017) ........... 56
`Encyclopaedia Britannica, Lithography,
`https://bit.ly/3ILB9ea .............................................. 43
`Laura Gilbert, No Longer Appropriate?,
`Art Newspaper, May 9, 2012 ............................ 38, 39
`Jane C. Ginsburg, Comment on Andy Warhol
`Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v.
`Goldsmith, 16 J. Intell. Prop. L. & Prac. 638
`(2021) ............................................................. 31, 33, 47
`Jane C. Ginsburg, Does ‘Transformative Fair
`Use’ Eviscerate the Author’s Exclusive
`Right to ‘Transform’ Her Work?,
`17 J. Intell. Prop. L. & Prac.
`(forthcoming 2022) ................................................... 41
`Jane C. Ginsburg, Letter from the US Part I,
`270 Revue Internationale du Droit d’Auteur
`91 (2021) .................................................................... 43
`Lynn Goldsmith, Album Covers,
`https://bit.ly/3BIisXA ................................................ 6
`Lynn Goldsmith, PhotoDiary (1995) ............................. 9
`Lynn Goldsmith, Rock and Roll Stories (2013) ........ 6, 9
`Paul Goldstein, Goldstein on Copyright
`§ 12.2.2.1 (3d ed. 2022) ............................................. 47
`E.H. Gombrich, The Story of Art (2021) ..................... 52
`Blake Gopnik, Warhol (2020) ................................. 11, 38
`
`
`
`
`
`VII
`
`Page
`
`Other Authorities—continued:
`Kelly Grovier, The Urinal That Changed How
`We Think, BBC (Apr. 11, 2017),
`https://bbc.in/3OkQhQQ .......................................... 53
`Interview 1987-09, Internet Archive,
`https://bit.ly/39X1o3Z .............................................. 14
`Bob Kohn, Kohn on Music Licensing
`(5th ed. 2019) ............................................................ 49
`William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner,
`The Economic Structure of Intellectual
`Property Law (2003) ................................................. 8
`Pierre N. Leval, Campbell as Fair Use
`Blueprint?, 90 Wash. L. Rev. 597 (2015) .. 30, 37, 39
`Pierre N. Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard,
`103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105 (1990) .................... 27, 29, 39
`Lucie Awards, Lynn Goldsmith,
`https://bit.ly/39UP0l0 ................................................ 7
`Naomi Martin, Andy Warhol Portraits,
`Artland Mag., https://bit.ly/3OYasEH .................. 10
`Steven McElroy, If It’s So Easy, Why Don’t
`You Try It, N.Y. Times, Dec. 3, 2010..................... 52
`Sia Michel, Rock Portraits, N.Y. Times,
`Dec. 2, 2007 ................................................................. 6
`Ian Mohr, Warhol Foundation Sends Cease-
`and-Desist Letter to Ryan Raftery’s
`Musical Parody, Page Six (Feb. 28, 2022),
`https://pge.sx/3LFKjsN .......................................... 16
`Melville B. Nimmer & David B. Nimmer,
`Nimmer on Copyright
`§ 2.08.......................................................................... 54
`§ 13.03........................................................................ 34
`§ 13.05........................................................................ 32
`
`
`
`
`
`VIII
`
`Page
`
`Other Authorities—continued:
`William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright
`(Mar. 2022 update)
`§ 3:70 ......................................................................... 54
`§ 3:121 ....................................................................... 54
`§ 4:44 ......................................................................... 50
`§ 10:13 ....................................................................... 25
`§ 10:35.20 .................................................................. 54
`§ 10:35.30 .................................................................. 33
`§ 10:35.31 ............................................................ 15, 53
`§ 10:35.33 ...................................................... 33, 52, 54
`§ 10:35.34 .................................................................. 50
`§ 10:157 ..................................................................... 36
`§ 22:82 ....................................................................... 37
`William F. Patry, Patry on Fair Use § 3:1
`(May 2022 update) ................................................... 25
`Mark Rose, Authors in Court (2016) ........................... 38
`Rebecca Tushnet, Make Me Walk, Make Me
`Talk, Do Whatever You Please, in Intellectual
`Property at the Edge (Rochelle Cooper
`Dreyfuss & Jane C. Ginsburg eds., 2014) ............. 55
`Carol Vogel, A Pollock Is Sold, Possibly for a
`Record Price, N.Y. Times, Nov. 2, 2006 ................ 52
`Catherine Walthall, The Meaning of the
`Weirdest Beatles Song, “I Am the Walrus,”
`Am. Songwriter (July 9, 2022),
`https://bit.ly/3B22rv7 ............................................... 52
`Webster’s New International Dictionary
`(2d ed. 1949) .............................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`
`
`ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR THE VISUAL ARTS, INC.
`PETITIONER,
`
`v.
`
`LYNN GOLDSMITH AND LYNN GOLDSMITH, LTD.,
`RESPONDENTS.
`
`
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
`
`
`BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS
`
`
`STATEMENT
`Every day, novelists strike gold selling film rights to
`Hollywood. Musicians license songs for commercials.
`Photographers license photographs for magazines, calen-
`dars, and news stories. Comic-book writers beget car-
`toons. To all creators, the 1976 Copyright Act enshrines a
`longstanding promise: Create innovative works, and cop-
`yright law guarantees your right to control if, when, and
`how your works are viewed, distributed, reproduced, or
`adapted. Creators and multi-billion-dollar licensing in-
`dustries rely on that premise.
`
`(1)
`
`
`
`2
`
`Copyrights have limits. Section 107 of the Act codifies
`the common-law fair-use doctrine, an affirmative defense
`against infringement. The contours of fair use have long
`been clear. Courts determine whether secondary uses are
`fair by holistically balancing four factors: whether the
`new use embodies a different “purpose and character”
`from the original; the nature of the original work; how
`much, and how significantly the new use copies; and the
`potential market impact on the original. That test encour-
`ages creative works that stand apart from original works,
`while preventing copycats from shortcutting ingenuity.
`Petitioner Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF) would
`throw the traditional fair-use test overboard. AWF iso-
`lates one fair-use factor, “the purpose and character of the
`use”—in the Court’s shorthand, a “transformative use.”
`According to AWF, infringing works are transformative,
`and presumptively fair use, if they add new meaning or
`message to the original.
`But the Act does not refer to “new meaning or mes-
`sage.” From the common law onward, adding new mean-
`ings to original works has never absolved copiers of liabil-
`ity for infringement. This Court and others have instead
`asked whether copying is necessary to accomplish some
`distinct end, such that the new use stands on its own with-
`out substituting for the original. Parody, news commen-
`tary, and criticism are paradigmatic examples where some
`copying is necessary for the secondary works to exist.
`Those distinct purposes usually prevent secondary works
`from supplanting originals.
`AWF’s meaning-or-message test is completely un-
`workable and arbitrary. Asking if new works are “reason-
`ably perceived” to have different meanings is a fool’s er-
`rand. Creators, critics, and viewers disagree about what
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`works mean. Nor could AWF’s test apply to many copy-
`rightable works—like marine charts—that harbor no hid-
`den depths.
`AWF’s test would transform copyright law into all
`copying, no right. Altering a song’s key to convey differ-
`ent emotions: presumptive fair use. Switching book end-
`ings so the bad guys win: ditto. Airbrushing photographs
`so the subject conforms to ideals of beauty: same. That
`alternative universe would decimate creators’ livelihoods.
`Massive licensing markets would be for suckers, and fair
`use becomes a license to steal.
`Under established principles, this is a classic case of
`nontransformativeness. Respondent Lynn Goldsmith, a
`renowned photographer, took a distinctive studio photo-
`graph of Prince. In 1984, Vanity Fair commissioned Andy
`Warhol to use Goldsmith’s photograph to create an illus-
`tration of Prince for an article. No one thought Warhol
`could appropriate Goldsmith’s photograph without per-
`mission. Vanity Fair paid Goldsmith $400 for a license
`and credited her photograph as the source for Warhol’s
`illustration, “Purple Prince,” which Warhol apparently
`created as part of the “Prince Series”—16 silkscreens and
`sketches of Prince.
`Fast forward to 2016. Warhol had long since passed
`away; Prince suddenly died. Vanity Fair’s parent, Condé
`Nast, wanted to rerun Purple Prince. AWF offered other
`Prince Series images; Condé Nast chose Warhol’s “Or-
`ange Prince.” That use—the only one at issue—substi-
`tuted for Goldsmith’s photograph in the same magazine
`market. Magazines depicting Prince could choose be-
`tween Warhol’s and Goldsmith’s images. Same source
`photograph as Purple Prince; same publisher; same use—
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`yet, this time, no credit or payment to Goldsmith. Copy-
`right law cannot possibly prescribe one rule for purple
`silkscreens and another for orange ones.
`Under AWF’s test, this case becomes a manipulable
`battle of opinions. In AWF’s view, because Goldsmith tes-
`tified that Prince seemed “vulnerable” but art critics
`opined that Warhol made celebrities appear “iconic,” War-
`hol’s versions are transformative. Pitting Goldsmith’s
`purported subjective intent against critics’ decades-later
`assessment of Warhol’s oeuvre compares apples to or-
`anges and raises questions sure to fuel endless litigation.
`If Goldsmith says Prince looked “iconic” or hired experts
`to so testify, does the outcome change? If newly discov-
`ered Warhol diaries reveal he saw Prince as “vulnerable,”
`what then? Under AWF’s theory, if critics say every War-
`hol-style silkscreen alters a photograph’s meaning, copi-
`ers would prevail. This Court should not jettison
`longstanding fair-use principles for a jerry-rigged test de-
`signed to let AWF always win.
`A. Goldsmith’s 1981 Portraits of Prince
`In 1981, the Rolling Stones’ “Start Me Up” dominated
`the airwaves, but Prince’s star was rising with his new al-
`bum Controversy. Eric Braun, Prince 24 (2017). He
`hosted Saturday Night Live and opened for the Stones.
`Id. at 22.
`Lynn Goldsmith took notice. She suggested to
`Newsweek’s photo editor, Myra Kreiman, that Newsweek
`commission her to shoot portraits of Prince. C.A. Joint
`Appendix (C.A.J.A.) 698. Newsweek agreed. Goldsmith,
`Kreiman explained, was “our A list photographer for this
`type of assignment.” C.A.J.A.771. “[W]hen Lynn Gold-
`smith took somebody into the studio,” Kreiman said, “you
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`generally expected to get something that was … excep-
`tional. That was creative.” C.A.J.A.773.
`Goldsmith already had created many iconic portraits:
`
`Roger Daltrey
`
`Mick Jagger
`
`
`
`
`
`Bruce Springsteen
`
`Patti Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Bob Marley
`Bob Dylan
`Goldsmith had “bec[o]me a leading rock photogra-
`pher at a time when women on the scene were largely dis-
`missed as groupies.” Sia Michel, Rock Portraits, N.Y.
`Times, Dec. 2, 2007. Patti Smith commissioned Goldsmith
`for the cover of Easter, and Tom Petty commissioned
`Goldsmith for “The Waiting.” Lynn Goldsmith, Album
`Covers, https://bit.ly/3BIisXA. As culture reporter An-
`thony Mason put it: “Lynn is a real legend in that world,
`she’s a great photographer, and a real pioneer.” CBS
`News, New Photography Book Captures the Rise of Leg-
`endary Band KISS (Dec. 16, 2017), https://cbsn.ws
`/3GicmgG.
`Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, Life, and Time commis-
`sioned Goldsmith photographs. C.A.J.A.639; Lynn Gold-
`smith, Rock and Roll Stories 40, 392 (2013). Interview,
`Andy Warhol’s own magazine, featured her work.
`C.A.J.A.1639. Museums including the Smithsonian’s Na-
`tional Portrait Gallery and the Museum of Modern Art
`showcase Goldsmiths. J.A.310. For her groundbreaking
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`portraiture, Goldsmith won a Lucie Award, the Oscar of
` Lucie Awards, Lynn Goldsmith,
`photography.
`https://bit.ly/39UP0l0.
`Thus, when Goldsmith portrayed Prince, it was no
`mere matter of pointing the camera and clicking. The pro-
`cess spanned two days. She captured Prince in concert,
`then brought him to her studio. J.A.319.
`There, she assembled a playlist of early rock to chan-
`nel Prince’s formative years. J.A.274. She gave Prince
`purple eyeshadow and lip gloss to accentuate his sensual-
`ity. Pet.App.4a. She set the lighting to showcase Prince’s
`“chiseled bone structure.” J.A.316. And she alternated
`85-mm and 105-mm lenses to frame Prince’s face.
`Pet.App.4a-5a. Goldsmith explained: “There is a reason I
`pick everything I pick.” C.A.J.A.1517.
`Goldsmith created the below portrait—the subject of
`this case—during that session:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`The lip gloss that Goldsmith had Prince apply glints
`off his lip. J.A.279-80. The pinpricks of light in Prince’s
`eyes reflect her photography umbrellas. J.A.285. And the
`well of shadow around Prince’s eyes and across his chin
`come from Goldsmith’s lighting choices. J.A.316.
`Newsweek featured a Goldsmith photograph from
`Prince’s concert. J.A.496. Goldsmith kept the black-and-
`white portraits in her files for future publication or licens-
`ing. J.A.319.
`Like many photographers, Goldsmith’s livelihood re-
`lies on licensing. J.A.109. Profits from the initial creation
`and sale of individual photographs tend to be low. J.A.292
`(Sedlik expert report). Thus, photographers “are in the
`business of licensing reproduction rights for a variety of
`unanticipated uses.” William M. Landes & Richard A.
`Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property
`Law 266 (2003). Photographers often license a single pho-
`tograph across different mediums, from magazines to
`book covers to calendars. J.A.292-93.
`By holding back her Prince portraits, Goldsmith re-
`tained control over when, where, and how others would
`view her art. For example, she licensed a portrait from
`her 1981 session to Musician magazine for a 1983 cover:
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`Goldsmith licensed other Prince portraits to People,
`Reader’s Digest, and the Smithsonian catalog. J.A.369-70.
`Her books feature later Prince portraits and recount her
`1981 shoot. Rock and Roll Stories, supra, at 54-55; Lynn
`Goldsmith, PhotoDiary (1995). The National Portrait
`Gallery also displayed a Goldsmith portrait of Prince.
`C.A.J.A.990.
`B. Andy Warhol’s 1984 Prince Series
`1. In 1984, Prince’s star became a supernova with the
`release of Purple Rain. For its November 1984 issue,
`Vanity Fair wanted an illustration of Prince for an article,
`“Purple Fame,” assessing Prince’s rise. J.A.524. The
`magazine hired Andy Warhol for the commission. The
`record is silent as to why Warhol specifically was chosen.
`Contra Pet. Br. 18.
`By 1984, Warhol’s “cutting-edge reputation had taken
`a beating,” in the words of AWF’s expert Thomas Crow.
`J.A.218. Warhol’s celebrity portraits from the 1960s gave
`way to commissions for wealthy socialites. J.A.211. War-
`hol delegated much of his production process so that he
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`could complete 50 commissions annually, at $25,000
`apiece. Naomi Martin, Andy Warhol Portraits, Artland
`Mag., https://bit.ly/3OYasEH.
`Warhol also maintained a sideline doing small-dollar
`magazine commissions that “could generate orders” for
`more “lucrative portraits.” C.A.J.A.1876 ($1,000 commis-
`sion). Earlier in 1984, Warhol accepted a Time commis-
`sion to portray Michael Jackson for the cover, despite
`qualms about Time’s artistic judgment. (Per Warhol’s di-
`ary: “The cover should have had more blue. I gave them
`some in [another] style … , but they wanted this style.”
`March 12, 1984, in The Andy Warhol Diaries (Pat Hack-
`ett ed., 1989).)
`Now, Vanity Fair wanted a Warhol silkscreen of
`Prince. But not of whatever image struck Warhol’s fancy.
`Vanity Fair licensed a Goldsmith photograph of Prince
`“for use as artist reference for an illustration to be pub-
`lished in Vanity Fair.” J.A.85. An artist reference is a
`photograph which “an artist would create a work of art
`based on.” Pet.App.6a (cleaned up). Goldsmith’s agency
`selected Goldsmith’s above, never-before-seen portrait of
`Prince. J.A.146. In return, Vanity Fair paid Goldsmith a
`$400 licensing fee—a fact AWF omits. J.A.86.
`Vanity Fair agreed to credit Goldsmith for the source
`photograph alongside Warhol’s illustration—another key
`fact AWF omits. J.A.86. Vanity Fair agreed that any il-
`lustration based on Goldsmith’s photograph could run
`only in the November 1984 issue. J.A.85. Vanity Fair
`agreed to run only one full-page and one quarter-page ver-
`sion of the illustration and only in the North American
`print edition. J.A.85. And Vanity Fair agreed that
`“[o]ther than for the purpose indicated herein,” Gold-
`smith’s photograph “may not be reproduced or utilized in
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`any form or by any means” without Goldsmith’s permis-
`sion. J.A.86. The license stated: “NO OTHER USAGE
`RIGHTS GRANTED.” J.A.85.
`2. License secured, Vanity Fair sent Goldsmith’s
`photograph to Warhol to use in the commissioned work.
`According to AWF’s expert Crow, Warhol likely would not
`have depicted Prince at all absent this commission.
`J.A.307. The record is silent on Warhol’s ensuing creation
`of 16 silkscreens and sketches of Prince, now called the
`Prince Series. The Prince Series was apparently not
`memorable enough to feature in Warhol’s diaries.
`What is apparent is that Warhol employed his well-es-
`tablished silkscreening technique to create the Prince Se-
`ries. Silkscreen printing “allowed Warhol and his assis-
`tants to mass-produce a large number of prints with rela-
`tive ease.” Andy Warhol Museum, PowerPoint: Silk-
`screen Printing 4, https://bit.ly/38HwTPD. Warhol pro-
`claimed: “Anyone can do them.” J.A.195. By the 1980s,
`Warhol outsourced silkscreening to a contractor who “de-
`liver[ed] the still-damp canvases to the back rooms of
`Warhol’s studio,” so Warhol appeared to have created
`them himself. Blake Gopnik, Warhol 850 (2020).
`The silkscreening process would have begun with a
`professional printer enlarging and reproducing Gold-
`smith’s photograph onto a fine-mesh silkscreen using a
`chemical solution to produce essentially a blown-up photo-
`graphic negative. J.A.160, 164-65. The printer would have
`also printed Goldsmith’s photograph on transparent ace-
`tate, so that Warhol or assistants could trace the photo-
`graph onto
`canvas and apply brightly
`colored
`paint. J.A.168. The two drawings and two screen prints
`in the Prince Series were preliminary phases of the silk-
`screen process. C.A.J.A.802-03. For example:
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Warhol or assistants would place the silkscreen with
`the photograph on the canvas, pour ink on the silkscreen,
`then squeegee the ink through the silkscreen onto the can-
`vas. The end result reproduced the photograph on the
`painted canvas. J.A.164-65; see Andy Warhol Museum,
`Andy Warhol’s Silkscreen Technique, YouTube (Sept. 26,
`2017), https://bit.ly/3Qnjwnw. The remaining 12 works in
`the Prince Series were created this way.
`Essential features of Goldsmith’s portrait thus recur
`throughout the Prince Series. Pet.App.34a-35a & n.10.
`The angle of Prince’s gaze is identical. Prince’s dark
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`bangs obscure his right eye. Pet.App.34a. The shadows
`ringing Prince’s eyes and darkening his chin remain. The
`light and shadow on Prince’s lips owe their pattern to
`Goldsmith’s lip gloss. Even the reflections from Gold-
`smith’s photography umbrellas in Prince’s eyes carry
`through. Pet.App.36a. As Warhol’s assistant Gerard Ma-
`langa explained, Warhol’s prints were not intended “to get
`away from the preconceived image, but to more fully ex-
`ploit it through the commercial techniques of multiple re-
`production.” J.A.191.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Vanity Fair ran one Prince Series image, Purple
`Prince, inside the November 1984 issue, crediting Gold-
`smith alongside the image and elsewhere:
`
`
`
`C.A.J.A.1046, 1048; contra Pet. Br. 21 (omitting credit).
`Those credits were typical when magazines used
`Goldsmith’s work for artist’s references. Indeed, War-
`hol’s magazine, Interview, licensed a Goldsmith portrait of
`comedian Eddie Murphy as a source photograph and
`prominently credited her when artist Richard Bernstein
`used her photograph in a cover portrait of Murphy. Inter-
`view did so even though Bernstein cropped Murphy, al-
`tered his face, and changed colors. Interview 1987-09, In-
`ternet Archive, https://bit.ly/39X1o3Z:
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Goldsmith Original
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Interview Cover
`
`
`3. After Vanity Fair ran Purple Prince, Warhol never
`sold or displayed the Prince Series. See William F. Patry,
`Patry on Copyright § 10:35.31 (Mar. 2022 update).
`Warhol died in 1987. Petitioner AWF took ownership
`of the Prince Series, plus Warhol’s copyrights and other
`works—assets worth around $337 million. AWF, Form
`990-PF, at 1 (Mar. 3, 2021), https://bit.ly/3oTy4Q7. AWF
`began monetizing the Prince Series, selling 12 of the 16
`originals for large sums and licensing many Prince im-
`ages. J.A.340; C.A.J.A.1822-31. The Andy Warhol Mu-
`seum holds the other four. Pet.App.9a.
`That revenue stream is part of AWF’s licensing em-
`pire, which nets AWF over $3.4 million annually for War-
`hol reprints on everything from cat toys to pint glasses.
`Form 990-PF, supra, at 12. AWF protects its copyrights
`aggressively, even sending a cease-and-desist letter to an
`artist who planned to project Warhol’s works within a mu-
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`sical parody. Ian Mohr, Warhol Foundation Sends Cease-
`and-Desist Letter to Ryan Raftery’s Musical Parody,
`Page Six (Feb. 28, 2022), https://pge.sx/3LFKjsN.
`C. AWF’s 2016 License to Condé Nast
`This case arises from a 2016 magazine reprint of an-
`other Warhol Prince Series image. When Prince died in
`2016, magazines raced to feature him. Several approached
`Goldsmith: People paid $2,000 to license her Prince con-
`cert photographs, and Guitar World paid $2,300 to license
`her work for a cover. J.A.369
`Condé Nast, Vanity Fair’s parent company, expe-
`dited a tribute, “The Genius of Prince,” featuring many
`Prince photographs. C.A.J.A.2393-2400. Condé Nast
`sought AWF’s permission to rerun Purple Prince.
`Pet.App.9a. After AWF flagged other Prince Series
`works, Condé Nast picked Orange Prince
`instead.
`Pet.App.9a. AWF charged $10,250 to run Orange Prince
`on the cover. J.A.360. But, unlike when this same pub-
`lisher ran Purple Prince, Goldsmith received no credit or
`payment for the Orange Prince cover. C.A.J.A.1142.
`
`
`
` 1984 Vanity Fair
`
` 2016 Condé Nast
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`When the Condé Nast cover circulated, Goldsmith
`saw Orange Prince for the first time and recognized her
`work. J.A.354-55. Warhol’s depiction of Prince struck
`Goldsmith as “identical” to hers. J.A.289. “Not just the
`outline of his face, his face, his hair, his features, where the
`neck is. It’s the photograph.” J.A.290.
`
`
`Goldsmith contacted AWF in July 2016 to “find a way
`to amicably resolve” the issue. C.A.J.A.1152; J.A.355-56.
`D. Proceedings Below
`1. Instead, in April 2017, AWF sued Goldsmith in the
`Southern District of New York, seeking a declaratory
`judgment that the entire Prince Series was noninfringing
`or, alternatively, fair use. Pet.App.2a.
`Goldsmith filed a single counterclaim, alleging that
`AWF infringed her copyright “by reproducing, publicly
`displaying, commercially licensing and distributing” Or-
`ange Prince. J.A.119. Her counterclaim identified one use
`only: AWF’s 2016 license to Condé Nast. J.A.119. Gold-
`smith initially sought declaratory and injunctive relief,
`J.A.120-21, but later clarified that request only reaches
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`similar commercial licensing. C.A. Br. 50; C.A. Reply Br.
`18; C.A. Arg. 9:06-10:59. Goldsmith does not seek to en-
`join displays of the Prince Series, which AWF no longer
`possesses. Pet.App.29a n.8, 42a; C.A. Arg. 7:57-8:06. And
`the Act has a 3-year limitations period. 17 U.S.C. § 507(b).
`2. On summary judgment, the district court held that
`the whole Prince S
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
