Brian Walshe, charged with killing his wife, has been sentenced to 37 months in prison for selling fake Andy Warhol paintings in an unrelated case. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud, interstate transportation for a scheme to defraud, and unlawful monetary transaction. Walshe is also facing state charges, including first-degree murder, in connection with his wife's disappearance on New Year's Day of 2023. Prosecutors have alleged that Walshe killed his wife and disposed of her body.
Angelina Jolie was seen at JFK airport in New York City with her children, Pax and Zahara, looking stylish in a black trench coat and white pants. This comes after it was revealed that Jolie has leased a Manhattan property once owned by Andy Warhol. The 6,600-square-foot building will be transformed into Atelier Jolie, a space for underrepresented tailors who work with upcycled items. Jolie was personally involved in closing the deal and faced competition from other interested parties.
Artists Paige Powell and Brigid Berlin, known for their connections to Andy Warhol and Jean-Michel Basquiat, are now being recognized for their own artistic contributions. Powell's photographs capture the vibrant New York art scene of the 1980s, while Berlin's work explores themes of weight, family, and sexuality. Both artists are featured in exhibitions in New York and Paris, shedding light on their individual agency and creativity beyond their associations with famous men.
The Brant Foundation is currently showcasing "Andy Warhol: Thirty Are Better than One," a survey of five decades of purchases by Peter Brant in his New York foundation. The exhibit features 50 classic works of Pop Art, including a great Car Crash, a bullet-pierced Marilyn, and a vast Oxidation that Warhol "painted" with urine. However, the author suggests that we should acknowledge the profound and fertile wrongness that was in Warhol's art from the start, rather than just admiring his achievements. Warhol was willing to recognize how stuff that starts life looking like art can end it acting like currency, and his works have become the safest of deluxe commodities.
Art dealer Daniel Elie Bouaziz has been sentenced to two years and three months in federal prison for selling fake paintings by artists including Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, Keith Haring, and Henri Matisse. Bouaziz, who owned Danieli Fine Art and Galerie Danieli in Palm Beach county, sold counterfeit artworks to a customer for between $75,000 and $240,000, claiming they were authentic originals. He pleaded guilty to a single count of money laundering, and prosecutors agreed to drop 16 other counts related to fraud and embezzlement.
Experts are still analyzing the impact of the Supreme Court's recent copyright decision involving Andy Warhol on other cases, including those involving artist Richard Prince. The Warhol decision was narrow, focusing on the use of the image rather than how much of another work an artist can copy. The court found that the Warhol portrait had been used for the same commercial purpose as the original photograph, and that conveying a new meaning or message through an artistically altered work was not justification enough for protection. The question of transformation remains central to the Richard Prince cases, which involve an installation called "New Portraits" that features Instagram photos printed on large canvases with added comments.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented against the Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling against the Andy Warhol Foundation in a copyright case featuring a Prince portrait by Andy Warhol. Kagan accused her colleagues of hypocrisy and stifling creativity, while quoting "The Sound of Music." The majority ruled that Warhol had infringed on Lynn Goldsmith's copyright of her portrait of Prince by creating an orange silk screen print of the photo. Kagan argued that the ruling would stifle creativity and make the world poorer.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan accused her colleagues of hypocrisy and stifling creativity in a Supreme Court ruling against artists in a copyright case featuring a Prince portrait by Andy Warhol. The Court ruled 7-2 against the Andy Warhol Foundation, determining that the iconic artist had infringed on Lynn Goldsmith's copyright of her portrait of Prince by creating an orange silk screen print of the photo. Kagan argued that the ruling would stifle creativity of every sort and make our world poorer.
The Supreme Court's recent ruling in the case involving the estate of Andy Warhol and photographer Lynn Goldsmith has divided experts on intellectual property rights. The decision hinges on the legal concept of "fair use," which allows for the use of copyrighted works without the owner's permission in certain circumstances. The ruling has implications for AI-generated art and literary works that are to emerge, and the still-larger wave of litigation likely to follow. The decision significantly narrowed fair use rights of artists and writers, which some experts believe is not good for the industry.
The Supreme Court ruled that Andy Warhol's "Prince Series" is not transformative enough to count as "fair use" of Lynn Goldsmith's photograph of Prince. Justice Elena Kagan passionately dissented, warning that the ruling will stifle creativity. However, the art world may be on the Court's side, as anti-appropriation is a common theme these days. The renewed obsession with copyright and proprietary notions about art comes at a time of deep artistic insecurity, with AI creating images daily based on tens of millions of "remembered" images.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Andy Warhol infringed on the copyright of photographer Lynn Goldsmith by using her photograph of Prince for his famous silkscreen. The court disagreed with Warhol's camp that his work was transformative enough to prevent any copyright claims. The decision could have far-reaching implications for fair use and could influence future cases on what constitutes transformative work. Justice Elena Kagan strongly disagreed with the decision, arguing that it would stifle creativity.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that Andy Warhol's painting of Prince infringed on the copyright of the original photographer, Lynn Goldsmith. The court ruled that Warhol's work did not fall under fair-use laws by seven votes to two. The Andy Warhol Foundation argued that his work was sufficiently transformative from Goldsmith's photo, which the painting was based off. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote Goldsmith's "original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists".
The US Supreme Court has ruled that Andy Warhol's use of a photograph of Prince in his artwork "Prince Series" breached copyright laws. The decision overturns a previous ruling that the work was protected under the "fair use" doctrine. The case was brought by the late musician's estate, which argued that Warhol's use of the image was not transformative enough to be considered fair use.
The US Supreme Court ruled that Andy Warhol's use of Lynn Goldsmith's photograph of Prince in a silkscreen series was not immune from her copyright infringement lawsuit. The ruling focused on the licensing of only one of Warhol's Prince images and did not deem the entire silkscreen series a copyright violation. The case was watched closely in the art world and entertainment industry for its implications regarding the legal doctrine called fair use, which promotes freedom of expression by allowing the use of copyright-protected works under certain circumstances without the owner's permission.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that Andy Warhol's use of a photographer's portrait of Prince for a series of pop-art images was not protected by fair use, limiting the reach of the defense to copyright infringement claims. The court found that the photographer's "original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists" like Warhol. The decision tests the reach of the defense and how courts should evaluate if works based on others are meaningfully transformative enough to qualify as a different piece.
