Since 2017, we’ve been following the federal lawsuit between the Andy Warhol Foundation and photographer Lynn Goldsmith.  In mid-2019, a federal judge in New York dismissed Goldsmith’s copyright infringement claims against the Foundation, ruling that a series of Warhol artworks based on an image taken by the photographer were protected as fair use.  But now, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed that decision, in an opinion that has potentially wide-reaching impacts for the Foundation, for appropriation art generally, and for anyone in the art world who is interested in the ongoing question of how courts handle the difficult concept of fair use.  

At the very end of 2020, Congress enacted new legislation that will provide a streamlined process for adjudicating small-claim copyright infringement cases.  The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 (the “CASE Act”), included as part of the COVID-19 Relief Bill, establishes a new Copyright Claims Board (“CCB”) to oversee claims of copyright infringement that do not exceed $30,000.  Some see this is an efficient solution for those seeking to adjudicate minor copyright disputes, while others view this legislation as a potential avenue for attacks on everyday internet users who may lack the resources to track and opt out of these proceedings.

As we leave 2020 behind, we’ve put together a brief update on some of the Supreme Court’s most significant 2020 decisions that have implications for the art world, as well as a couple of cases that have been argued but not yet decided.

This blog has written before about acclaimed conceptual artist Cady Noland, who has a reputation for being particular about how her works are installed, maintained, exhibited, and sold.  As our previous posts explain, she has even, on more than one occasion, disavowed an artwork she created, prompting litigation.  Now, a federal judge has issued a ruling in Noland’s most recent legal skirmish, dismissing her attempt to bring copyright infringement claims related to the restoration of one of her artworks.

Netflix’s “Tiger King” has become one of the streaming service’s most popular series in the last few weeks, documenting the years-long fight between Joe Exotic (né Schreibvogel), the self-proclaimed “Tiger King,” and Carole Baskin, founder and CEO of Big Cat Rescue Corp. (“Big Cat Rescue”).  The feud led to three separate intellectual-property lawsuits that bankrupted Exotic and serve as a cautionary tale as to how competitive antics can have severe legal consequences.

A recent federal court decision provides some insight into how U.S. copyright law might apply to the unique medium of tattoo art.  

Last week, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Internet Archive launched the National Emergency Library, a digital collection of 1.4 million books that can be accessed by unlimited users for free.  However, despite the decidedly noble mission, some authors and their advocates are bemoaning the potential negative consequences such a project may have on struggling authors who rely on copyright protection.  We, like many in the art world, will be paying attention to how this tension plays out, because copyright issues—regardless of genre—often have important implications for all art mediums.

In late 2019, the House of Representatives passed, with a rare show of bipartisan support, a bill that seeks to create what some have described as a small-claims court for copyright litigants.  The bill has now been sent to the Senate; if approved by the Senate and signed by the President, it would create an alternative forum for some types of copyright claims.

On January 1, a new cache of literature, music and art became part of the public domain as another year of copyright protection expired.  Until 1998, most works created before 1978 were protected under U.S. copyright law for 75 years after creation.  But in 1998, with the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, copyright protection of these older works was extended an additional 20 years, meaning that no additional works would again join the public domain until 2019.  Now, at the start of each year, creative works produced more than 95 years prior become available for public use and enjoyment.

A legal battle that has spanned decades and continents has finally been resolved in a California federal court.  Last month, the Northern District of California granted partial summary judgment in favor of Alan Wofsy on copyright-infringement claims stemming from his use of certain copyrighted photographs in his comprehensive reference catalogue of Picasso’s work, holding that Wofsy’s project constitutes “fair use.”

Earlier this month, a federal judge in New York dismissed a photographer’s copyright infringement claims against the Andy Warhol Foundation, after determining that a series of Warhol artworks based on an image taken by the photographer are protected as fair use. The ruling represents another entry in the ever-growing log of court decisions grappling with the sometimes-slippery concept of transformativeness in copyright law.

In a unanimous decision earlier this month, the Supreme Court resolved a debate that impacts would-be copyright infringement litigants. 

We here at Grossman LLP, along with many other legal commentators, have been following with interest the lawsuits against appropriation artist Richard Prince arising out of his controversial New Portraits works, first shown at the Gagosian Gallery in 2014, which Prince created from screen shots of photos taken by other Instagram users.  The court is now considering the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the issue of fair use, which have been fully briefed.  But along with the main event—the summary judgment motion—the court is also considering additional motions filed by both parties with regard to each other’s expert witnesses.  These motions are worth examining because they will presumably be resolved along with the summary judgment decision, and they raise some interesting questions that may have implications in the larger arena of fair use case law.

Last year, we wrote about the federal lawsuit filed by visual artist Lina Iris Viktor, which alleged that her copyrights in three original artworks were infringed in the music video of a song, “All the Stars,” from the soundtrack of last year’s blockbuster movie Black Panther.   She sued the song’s recording artists—Kendrick Lamar and SZA—as well as the record label and the video’s director and production company, among others.

Ever since Richard Prince’s “New Portraits” project first made headlines, we’ve been following the story—and the copyright implications.  Now, two lawsuits that arose out of that controversial exhibition are headed for a summary judgment ruling. 

Back in August, we wrote about a new lawsuit against automotive giant General Motors, and its potential implications for graffiti art.  Now, the artist plaintiff in that case has at least partially prevailed in GM’s motion for summary judgment, clearing the way for a trial.

Over the years we’ve covered many stories about how the American copyright regime applies to graffiti art.  Now, a lawsuit against car manufacturer General Motors may test a new legal angle in this area of case law.

Earlier this year, federal district judge Frederic Block issued an opinion ordering the defendants to pay significant damages for their violations of the Visual Artists Rights Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106A (also known as VARA).  Now, Judge Block has denied the defendants’ request to reconsider his ruling, instead reaffirming and bolstering that earlier decision in advance of the defendants’ appeal to the Second Circuit.  

​Last week, a federal judge refused a request by Sesame Workshop—creator of classic children’s television show Sesame Street—to enjoin parts of a marketing campaign for an upcoming R-rated comedy film featuring a much darker take on puppets.

This blog writes often about copyright law, including defenses to copyright infringement claims, such as fair use.  One recent decision highlights the “de minimis” defense to copyright infringement, which recognizes that there are cases where a defendant may use someone else’s copyrighted material in a way that is so minor that it does not give rise to a cognizable claim.