The Curious Case of the artist formerly known as Prince

22 September 2022

Photographer Lynn Goldsmith and the Andy Warhol Estate are locked in a battle over whether Warhol infringed on Goldsmith's copyright ownership, when he used her photo of Prince to create 15 silkscreen prints. Did she own the photo? Yes. Did he have access to and use the photo? Undoubtedly. Did he have permission? No, and that's where the issue lies.

Under copyright law, it's ok to be inspired by other work, in fact, that's the balance copyright law tries to strike - creators' rights must be balanced against user privileges and access to creative work. But sometimes that inspiration can go too far, and be considered copying, especially when the new work doesn't say anything different from the old one. If it can be considered a variation (containing all of the important elements of the original, with some tweaking) it's less likely to be considered a new work, as opposed to something that is clearly transformative and a new use or interpretation of the original.

Warhol's work is strongly linked with the Pop Art movement, which boldly challenged the Fine Art traditions by using popular and mass culture as base materials. The Warhol Estate lawyers are arguing that Warhol's end work is different enough from Goldsmith's original photo, and so it should be considered a new work, with its own copyright protection. But that's debateable, when you look at the photograph and the Warhol work side by side.

Should the courts rule that Warhol's unpermitted use is copyright infringement, that will open the door to potentially hundreds of lawsuits, so there's a lot to consider. Watch this space - it's a curious case for sure!

Are you interested in finding out how copyright applies to you?

We're offering FREE, one hour Creative Rights for Creative People workshops throughout 2022. Find out more here >>

Written by Karen Workman, Kaiwhakahaere Whakapa | Creative Rights Educator