Andy Wharol e la sua elaborazione della fotografia di Prince scattata da Lynn Goldsmith: per la decisione della Corte Suprema non c’è fair use

Supreme Court US n. 21-869 del 18 maggio 2023, ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR THE VISUAL ARTS, INC. v. GOLDSMITH ET AL.  decide l’oggetto.

Decide uno dei temi più importanti del diritto di autore, che assai spesso riguarda opere elaboranti opere precedenti.

Qui riporto il sillabo e per esteso: in sostanza l’esame della SC si appunta solo sul primo elemento dei quattro da conteggiare per decidere sul fair use (In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include : (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; ), 17 US code § 107.

<< The “purpose and character” of AWF’s use of Goldsmith’s photograph in commercially licensing Orange Prince to Condé Nast does not favor AWF’s fair use defense to copyright infringement. Pp. 12–38.
AWF contends that the Prince Series works are “transformative,”and that the first fair use factor thus weighs in AWF’s favor, because the works convey a different meaning or message than the photograph. But the first fair use factor instead focuses on whether an allegedlyinfringing use has a further purpose or different character, which is amatter of degree, and the degree of difference must be weighed againstother considerations, like commercialism. Although new expression, meaning, or message may be relevant to whether a copying use has asufficiently distinct purpose or character, it is not, without more, dis-positive of the first factor. Here, the specific use of Goldsmith’s photograph alleged to infringe her copyright is AWF’s licensing of OrangePrince to Condé Nast. As portraits of Prince used to depict Prince inmagazine stories about Prince, the original photograph and AWF’s copying use of it share substantially the same purpose. Moreover, AWF’s use is of a commercial nature. Even though Orange Prince adds new expression to Goldsmith’s photograph, in the context of the challenged use, the first fair use factor still favors Goldsmith. Pp. 12–27.
The Copyright Act encourages creativity by granting to the creator of an original work a bundle of rights that includes the rights toreproduce the copyrighted work and to prepare derivative works. 17
S. C. §106. Copyright, however, balances the benefits of incentives to create against the costs of restrictions on copying. This balancingact is reflected in the common-law doctrine of fair use, codified in §107,which provides: “[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work, . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . . , scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” To determine whether a particular use is “fair,” the statute enumerates four factors to be considered. The factors “set forth general principles, the application of which requires judicial balancing, depending upon relevant circumstances.” Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U. S. ___, ___.
The first fair use factor, “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes,” §107(1), considers the reasons for, and nature of, the copier’s use of an original work. The central question it asks is whether the use “merely supersedes the objects of the original creation . . . (supplanting the original), or instead adds something new, with afurther purpose or different character.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U. S. 569, 579 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As most copying has some further purpose and many secondary works add something new, the first factor asks “whether and to what extent” the use at issue has a purpose or character different from the original. Ibid. (emphasis added). The larger the difference, the morelikely the first factor weighs in favor of fair use. A use that has a further purpose or different character is said to be “transformative,” but that too is a matter of degree. Ibid. To preserve the copyright owner’s right to prepare derivative works, defined in §101 of the Copyright Act to include “any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed,or adapted,” the degree of transformation required to make “transformative” use of an original work must go beyond that required to qualify as a derivative.
The Court’s decision in Campbell is instructive. In holding that parody may be fair use, the Court explained that “parody has an obvious claim to transformative value” because “it can provide social benefit, by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating a new one.” 510 U. S., at 579. The use at issue was 2 Live Crew’s copying of Roy Orbison’s song, “Oh, Pretty Woman,” to create a rap derivative, “Pretty Woman.” 2 Live Crew transformed Orbison’s song by adding new lyrics and musical elements, such that “Pretty Woman” had adifferent message and aesthetic than “Oh, Pretty Woman.” But that did not end the Court’s analysis of the first fair use factor. The Court found it necessary to determine whether 2 Live Crew’s transformationrose to the level of parody, a distinct purpose of commenting on theoriginal or criticizing it. Further distinguishing between parody and satire, the Court explained that “[p]arody needs to mimic an originalto make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim’s (or collective victims’) imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing.” Id., at 580–581. More generally, when “commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, . . . the claim to fairness in borrowing from another’s work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger.” Id., at 580.
Campbell illustrates two important points. First, the fact that a use is commercial as opposed to nonprofit is an additional element of the first fair use factor. The commercial nature of a use is relevant, but not dispositive. It is to be weighed against the degree to which the use has a further purpose or different character. Second, the first factor relates to the justification for the use. In a broad sense, a use that has a distinct purpose is justified because it furthers the goal of copyright,namely, to promote the progress of science and the arts, without diminishing the incentive to create. In a narrower sense, a use may be justified because copying is reasonably necessary to achieve the user’s new purpose. Parody, for example, “needs to mimic an original to make its point.” Id., at 580–581. Similarly, other commentary or criticism that targets an original work may have compelling reason to “conjure up” the original by borrowing from it. Id., at 588. An independent justification like this is particularly relevant to assessing fairuse where an original work and copying use share the same or highly similar purposes, or where wide dissemination of a secondary work would otherwise run the risk of substitution for the original or licensedderivatives of it. See, e.g., Google, 593 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26).
In sum, if an original work and secondary use share the same orhighly similar purposes, and the secondary use is commercial, the first fair use factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying. Pp. 13–20.
The fair use provision, and the first factor in particular, requires an analysis of the specific “use” of a copyrighted work that is alleged to be “an infringement.” §107. The same copying may be fairwhen used for one purpose but not another. See Campbell, 510 U. S., at 585. Here, Goldsmith’s copyrighted photograph has been used in multiple ways. The Court limits its analysis to the specific use allegedto be infringing in this case—AWF’s commercial licensing of Orange Prince to Condé Nast—and expresses no opinion as to the creation, display, or sale of the original Prince Series works. In the context of Condé Nast’s special edition magazine commemorating Prince, the purpose of the Orange Prince image is substantially the same as thatof Goldsmith’s original photograph. Both are portraits of Prince used in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince. The use also is of a commercial nature. Taken together, these two elements counsel against fair use here. Although a use’s transformativeness may outweigh its commercial character, in this case both point in the same direction. That does not mean that all of Warhol’s derivative works, nor all uses of them, give rise to the same fair use analysis. Pp. 20–27.
AWF contends that the purpose and character of its use of Goldsmith’s photograph weighs in favor of fair use because Warhol’s silkscreen image of the photograph has a different meaning or message. By adding new expression to the photograph, AWF says, Warhol madetransformative use of it. Campbell did describe a transformative use as one that “alter[s] the first [work] with new expression, meaning, or message.” 510 U. S., at 579. But Campbell cannot be read to mean that §107(1) weighs in favor of any use that adds new expression, meaning, or message. Otherwise, “transformative use” would swallow the copyright owner’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works, asmany derivative works that “recast, transfor[m] or adap[t]” the original, §101, add new expression of some kind. The meaning of a secondary work, as reasonably can be perceived, should be considered to the extent necessary to determine whether the purpose of the use is distinct from the original. For example, the Court in Campbell considered the messages of 2 Live Crew’s song to determine whether the song hada parodic purpose. But fair use is an objective inquiry into what a user does with an original work, not an inquiry into the subjective intent of the user, or into the meaning or impression that an art critic or judge draws from a work.
Even granting the District Court’s conclusion that Orange Prince reasonably can be perceived to portray Prince as iconic, whereas Goldsmith’s portrayal is photorealistic, that difference must be evaluatedin the context of the specific use at issue. The purpose of AWF’s recent commercial licensing of Orange Prince was to illustrate a magazine about Prince with a portrait of Prince. Although the purpose could bemore specifically described as illustrating a magazine about Prince with a portrait of Prince, one that portrays Prince somewhat differently from Goldsmith’s photograph (yet has no critical bearing on her photograph), that degree of difference is not enough for the first factor to favor AWF, given the specific context and commercial nature of the use. To hold otherwise might authorize a range of commercial copying of photographs to be used for purposes that are substantially the sameas those of the originals.
AWF asserts another related purpose of Orange Prince, which is tocomment on the “dehumanizing nature” and “effects” of celebrity. No doubt, many of Warhol’s works, and particularly his uses of repeated images, can be perceived as depicting celebrities as commodities. But even if such commentary is perceptible on the cover of Condé Nast’s tribute to “Prince Rogers Nelson, 1958–2016,” on the occasion of the man’s death, the asserted commentary is at Campbell’s lowest ebb: It “has no critical bearing on” Goldsmith’s photograph, thus the commentary’s “claim to fairness in borrowing from” her work “diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish).” Campbell, 510 U. S., at 580. The commercial nature of the use, on the other hand, “loom[s] larger.” Ibid. Like satire that does not target an original work, AWF’s asserted commentary “can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification forthe very act of borrowing.” Id., at 581. Moreover, because AWF’s copying of Goldsmith’s photograph was for a commercial use so similar to the photograph’s typical use, a particularly compelling justification is needed. Copying the photograph because doing so was merely helpfulto convey a new meaning or message is not justification enough. Pp.28–37.
(c) Goldsmith’s original works, like those of other photographers, areentitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists. Such protection includes the right to prepare derivative works that transform the original. The use of a copyrighted work may nevertheless be fair if, among other things, the use has a purpose and character that is sufficiently distinct from the original. In this case, however, Goldsmith’s photograph of Prince, and AWF’s copying use of the photograph in an image licensed to a special edition magazine devoted to Prince, share substantially the same commercial purpose. AWF has offered no other persuasive justification for its unauthorized use of thephotograph. While the Court has cautioned that the four statutory fairuse factors may not “be treated in isolation, one from another,” but instead all must be “weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright,” Campbell, 510 U. S., at 578, here AWF challenges only the Court of Appeals’ determinations on the first fair use factor, and theCourt agrees the first factor favors Goldsmith. P. 38 >>

Per quanto elevata la creatività di Wharol, non si può negare che egli si sia appoggiato a quella della fotografa.

Da noi lo sfruttamento dell’opera elaborata, pe quanto creativa questa sia,  sempre richiede il consenso del titolare dell’opera base (a meno che il legame tra le due sia evanescente …).

Decisione a maggioranza, con opinione dissenziente di Kagan cui si è unito Roberts. Dissenso assai articolato, basato soprattutto sul ravvisare uso tranformative e sul ridurre l’importanza dello sfruttamento economico da parte di Wharol. Riporto solo questo :

<<Now recall all the ways Warhol, in making a Prince portrait from the Goldsmith photo, “add[ed] something new, with a further purpose or different character”—all the wayshe “alter[ed] the [original work’s] expression, meaning, [and] message.” Ibid. The differences in form and appearance, relating to “composition, presentation, color palette, and media.” 1 App. 227; see supra, at 7–10. The differences in meaning that arose from replacing a realistic—and indeed humanistic—depiction of the performer with an unnatural, disembodied, masklike one. See ibid. The conveyance of new messages about celebrity culture and itspersonal and societal impacts. See ibid. The presence of, in a word, “transformation”—the kind of creative building that copyright exists to encourage. Warhol’s use, to be sure, had a commercial aspect. Like most artists, Warhol did not want to hide his works in a garret; he wanted to sell them.But as Campbell and Google both demonstrate (and as further discussed below), that fact is nothing near the showstopper the majority claims. Remember, the more trans-formative the work, the less commercialism matters. See Campbell, 510 U. S., at 579; supra, at 14; ante, at 18 (acknowledging the point, even while refusing to give it any meaning). The dazzling creativity evident in the Prince portrait might not get Warhol all the way home in the fair-use inquiry; there remain other factors to be considered and possibly weighed against the first one. See supra, at 2, 10,
14. But the “purpose and character of [Warhol’s] use” of the copyrighted work—what he did to the Goldsmith photo, in service of what objects—counts powerfully in his favor. He started with an old photo, but he created a new new thing>>.

Editori contro Internet Archive: sentenza della corte newyorkese sul fair use relativo alla digitalizzazione di libri cartacei

Distretto Sud di New York 24 marzo 2023, 20-cv-4160 (JGK), Hachette ed altri c. Internet Archive ed altri.

Interne Archive , non profit, durante la pandemia digitalizzò 127 libri cartacei di 4 editori e li mise on line. Questi agiscono in giudizio per violaizone di diritto di autore.

La difesa di IA consistette solo nell’eccezione di  fair use (17 us code § 107).

Eccezione rigettata però.

Tra i punti più interessanti:

i) la differenza rispetto al caso Google Books (che pure digitalizza libri cartacei), ove fu ravvisato transformative use, sub A.1, pp. 19-20.

ii) l’aver ravvisato profit indiretto, anche se l’associazione è non profit, sub A.2 p. 26 ss

copyright su opera derivata

Il tentativo di registrare come opera dell’ingegno derivata la (nuova) statuetta dell’Oscar è stato rigettato anche in appello (amministrativo).

Si v. la decisione 23.07.2021 del Copyright review Board dello US Copyright Office, con le foto dell’opera originaria (non proprio tale, ad onor del vero, essendo anche essa a sua volta derivata: v. ivi, nota 1) messe vicino a quelle dell’opera derivata chiesta in registrazione-

la ragione del rigetto sta nella mancanza di originalità . che deve essere presente anche nella opera derivata (come da noi)

Le linee guida (Compendium) dell’Ufficio dicono al § 311.2 (3a ediz.): <<The amount of creativity required for a derivative work is the same as that required for a copyright in any other work. “All that is needed to satisfy both the Constitution and the statute is that the ‘author’ contributed something more than a ‘merely trivial’ variation, something recognizably ‘his own.’” Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., 191 F.2d 99, 10203 (2d Cir. 1951) (citing Chamberlin v. Uris Sales Corp., 150 F.2d 512, 513 (2d. Cir. 1945)). Thus, “the key inquiry is whether there is sufficient nontrivial expressive variation in the derivative work to make it distinguishable from the [preexisting] work in some meaningful way.” Schrock v. Learning Curve International, Inc., 586 F.3d 513, 521 (7th Cir. 2009).“While the quantum of originality that is required may be modest indeed,” courts have recognized that derivative works “[l]acking even a modest degree of originality. . . are not copyrightable.” L.Batlin &Son, 536 F.2d at 490; Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.,630 F.2d 905, 911 (2d Cir. 1980).

Miniscule variations do not satisfy this requirement, such as merely changing the size of the preexisting work. Merely recasting a work from one medium to another alone does not support a claimin derivative authorship. See L. Batlin & Son, 536 F.2d at 491. “Nor can the requirement of originality be satisfied simply by the demonstration of ‘physical skill’ or ‘special training.’” Id.>>

E poi : <<A registration for a derivative work only covers the new authorship that the author contributed to that work. It does not cover the authorship in the preexisting work(s) that has been recast, transformed, or adapted by the author of the derivative work. H.R.REP.NO.941476,at 57 (1976), reprinted in1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5670>> (precisaizone peraltro ovvia).

La decisione dunque così applica la regola:

<<Reviewing the new authorship, it is clear that the Work does not qualify for copyright protection. The circular and cylindrical shapes of the Work’s base are not copyrightable, nor is the color or material in which the work is cast or the letters and stylized font. 37 C.F.R. § 202.1 (prohibiting registration of “[w]ords and short phrases . . . familiar symbols or designs; [and] mere . . . coloring”); Darden v. Peters, 488 F.3d 277, 287 (4th Cir. 2007) (the addition of “color, shading, and labels using standard fonts and shapes [to a preexisting work] fall within the narrow category of works that lack even a minimum level of creativity” required for registration); L. Batlin & Son, 536 F.2d at 490 (noting that changes in medium alone do not constitute originality); COMPENDIUM (THIRD) §§ 310.9, 311.2, 906.2, 906.4. Indeed, the newly added cylindrical base is a common shape for standard trophy or statute bases.2 The addition of the words and lettering at the base of the Work is likewise not sufficiently creative, as it amounts to a minor variation of a common trophy design. Taken as a whole, the new authorship simply does not distinguish the Work from the Prior Statuette. While the Office and an observer may be able to identify differences in the Work, these few differences are not sufficient to satisfy the creativity requirement. As discussed above, the new expression merely adds non-copyrightable elements to a prior work. Where a design combines uncopyrightable elements, it is protected by copyright only when the “elements are numerous enough and their selection and arrangement original enough that their combination constitutes an original work of authorship.” Satava, 323 F.3d at 811. Here, the new contributions are too few and minor to make the Work distinguishable from the Prior Statuette in a meaningful way. A claim to register a derivative work that adds only non-copyrightable elements to a prior work is not entitled to copyright registration.SeeBoyds Collection, 360 F. Supp. at 661; Waldman Publ’g Corp., 43 F.3d at 782 (requiring sufficient creativity in the new authorship contained in a derivative work)>

Anche l’eccezione di “modernizzazione” dell’iconica statuetta è rigettata: <<HFPA focuses heavily on the aesthetic value and merit of the Work, asserting that it created a modern version of an award with a “classic and iconic look.” Second Request at 9. The Work, HFPA contends, is thus far from an “inexpensive youth soccer team award.” This argument, however, misses the mark. The Office must use only objective criteria to determine whether a work satisfies the originality requirement.See COMPENDIUM (THIRD) § 310. In doing so, the Office does not consider the aesthetic quality of the Work, look and feel of the Work, the author’s artistic judgment, or the commercial appeal or success of the Work. COMPENDIUM (THIRD) §§ 310.2, 310.4, 310.6, 310.10. As the Supreme Court has cautioned, it is imprudent to make such aesthetic and subjective judgments when evaluating the copyrightability of particular works. See, e.g., Bleistein, 188 U.S. at 251 (“It would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of [a work’s] worth.”). Therefore, no matter how aesthetically pleasing a work may be, that aspect does not weigh in favor of copyrightability.>>

La sentenza di solito citata intema di creatività nel US common law è quella del 1991 della Corte Suprema Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.,  più volte citata.

(notizia appresa dal post di R. Harvey nell’ottimo blog IPKat).

Protezione d’autore ex art. 2 n. 10 degli stivali da neve Moon Boot

Il Trib. Milano con sent. 493/2021 del 25.01.2021, RG 30937/2018, conferma la protezione d’autore come opera di design ex art. 2 n. 10 dello stivale da neve Moon Boot della Tecnica Group spa, già affermata nel 2016.

Il punto significativo è naturalmente spt. il concetto di <valore artistico>

A tale proposito, osserva il collegio riprendendo passaggi dalla sua sentenza del 2016 , <non potendo il giudice arrogarsi il compito di stabilire l’esistenza o meno in una determinata opera di un valore artistico – occore rilevare nella maniera più oggettiva possibile la percezione che di una determinata opera del design possa essersi consolidata nella collettività ed in particolare negli ambienti culturali in senso lato, estranei cioè ai soggetti più immediatamente coinvolti nella produzione e commercializzazione per un verso e nell’acquisto di un bene economico dall’altro. In tale prospettiva ha ritenuto questo Tribunale di dare rilievo – al fine di riconoscere una positiva significatività della qualità artistica di un’opera del design – al diffuso riconoscimento che più istituzioni culturali abbiano espresso in favore dell’appartenenza di essa ad un ambito di espressività che trae fondamento e che costituisce espressione di tendenze ed influenze di movimenti artistici o comunque della capacità dell’autore di interpretare lo spirito dell’epoca, anche al di là delle sue intenzioni e della sua stessa consapevolezza, posto che l’opera a contenuto artistico assume valore di per sé e per effetto delle capacità rappresentative e comunicative che essa possiede e che ad essa vengono riconosciute da un ambito di soggetti più ampio del solo consumatore di quello specifico oggetto.
In tale contesto il giudice dunque non attribuisce all’opera del design un “valore artistico” ex post in quanto acquisito a distanza di tempo, bensì ne valuta la sussistenza con un procedimento che in qualche modo richiede un apprezzamento che contestualizzi l’opera nel momento storico e culturale in cui è stata creata, di cui assurge in qualche modo a valore iconico, che può richiedere (come per tutti i fenomeni artistici) una qualche sedimentazione critica e culturale.>, p. 17.

Vi aggiunge alcuni successivi riconoscimenti artistici, p. 18-19.

Irrilevante è la preesistenza di altri modelli: <Né particolare rilievo sembrano assumere – al fine di sostenere una pretesa mancanza di novità dei Moon Boots – le pretese anteriorità costituite dalle calzature utilizzate dagli astronauti nella missione Apollo, cui il modello dell’attrice traeva diretto ed esplicito spunto ma dando luogo ad una del tutto autonoma e diversa autonomia di forme avente indubbio carattere creativo, o di altri modelli di calzature da neve per le quali tuttavia non è stata fornito alcun elemento in base al quale poter confermare la loro preesistenza rispetto all’immissione in commercio dei Moon Boots originali.> p. 19.

Sulla elaborazione creativa, diversa dalla contrraffazione: <l’elaborazione creativa si differenzia dalla contraffazione, in quanto mentre quest’ultima consiste nella sostanziale riproduzione dell’opera originale, con differenze di mero dettaglio che sono frutto non di un apporto creativo ma del mascheramento della contraffazione, la prima si caratterizza per un’elaborazione dell’opera originale con un riconoscibile apporto creativo. Ciò che rileva, pertanto, non è la possibilità di confusione tra due opere, alla stregua del giudizio d’impressione utilizzato in tema di segni distintivi dell’impresa, ma la riproduzione illecita di un’opera da parte dell’altra, ancorché camuffata in modo tale da non rendere immediatamente riconoscibile l’opera originaria (così Cass. 9854/12)…Al di là dell’inconferenza alla tematica del plagio/contraffazione di un’opera del design tutelata dal diritto d’autore della presenza di un marchio sul prodotto, la pretesa autonomia creativa si ridurrebbe di fatto all’estrosità conferita ai modelli dall’uso del glitter.     Ritiene il Collegio che tale profilo sia del tutto inessenziale a conferire l’autonomia ed originalità creativa necessaria per conferire al modello “glitterato” dignità di opera autonoma, tenuto presente l’assoluta identità delle forme della calzatura – come si rileva facilmente dal confronto tra le immagini innanzi riportate – con il Moon Boots originale>, p. 21/2.

Afferma anche la violazione di un obbligo contrattuale di non contestzione, il cui danno è però risarcito dalla pronuncia sulle spese, p. 24.

Non c’è spazio per autonomo danno da concorrenza sleale, che non ha autonomia rispetto alla violazione di autore, p. 24.

Sul profilo soggettivo: <Quanto all’illecito consistito nella lesione dei diritti di utilizzazione economica del design dei Moon Boots esistenti in capo a TECNICA GROUP s.p.a., deve confermarsi l’orientamento costante della giurisprudenza in ordine al fatto che nei confronti di tale titolare ogni soggetto che abbia partecipato alla filiera produttiva e distributiva del prodotto contraffatto debba risponderne in via solidale con gli altri appartenenti a tale filiera, avendo essi posto in essere un contributo causale comunque rilevante ai fni della consumazione dell’illecito (v. in tal senso Tribunale Milano 25.1.2006).>, p. 25.

Segue elenco dettagliato delle condotte addebitabili a ciascuno dei convenuti che giustifica la corresponsabilità

Riproduzione elaborata della fotografia di Prince da parte di Andy Wharol: contraffazione e/o fair use (transformative o derivative use)?

La nota riproduzione del ritratto di Prince da parte di Wharol (poi: W.) è oggetto di lite giudiziaria negli Stati Uniti.

Il lavoro di W. si basò su iniziale scatto della nota fotografa Lynn Goldsmith (G.), “specializzata in celebrità”. La quale l’aveva licenziata a Vanity Fair “for an use as artist reference” (cioè affinchè un artista possa “create a work of art based on [the] image reference”p .7/8).

Solo che detto artista fu … Wharol , il quale poi non si limitò al lavoro per Vanity Fair, ma produsse pure le famose Prince Series, consistenti in altri 15 lavori su tela e carta, p. 9.

La corte di appello del secondo circuito con sentenza 26 marzo 2021, Docket No. 19-2420-cv, A. Wharol Foundation c. Goldsmith,  riforma la sentenza di primo grado 01.07.2019 (p. 12), che aveva concesso senza esitazioni il fair use, e decide in senso opposto. (si vedano la fotografia iniziale e la prima riproduzione di W. per Vanity Fair nella sentenza).

Nessuno dei quattro fattori menzioanti dalla morma sul fair use (17 U.S. Code § 107), infatti, avvantaggia la Fondazione W.: al contrario, tutti avvantaggiano la fotografa G.a.

Particolarmente dettgliato è l’esame del primo fattore, a sua volta articolato nell’alternativa transformative/derivative work (il secondo non è prodotto da fair use, al pari delle nostre opere derivate) , p.16 ss, e nel requisito del commercial use, p. 33 ss.

Sul primo punto ricordo solo che per la corte l’uso trasformativo c’è , se è tale per  fruitori e cioè se viene così precepito, non se è tale per l’artista (o nelle sue intenzioni), p. 26/7: il che parrebbe per vero un’ovvietà.

In breve ,<<the Prince Series retains the essential elements of its source material, and Warhol’s modifications serve chiefly to magnify some elements of that material and minimize others. While the cumulative effect of those alterations may change the Goldsmith Photograph in ways that give a different impression of its subject, the Goldsmith Photograph remains the recognizable foundation upon which the Prince Series is built>>, p. 31.

Seguono poi gli altri punti:

B. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work, p. 35 ss;

C. The Amount and Substantiality of the Use, p. 37 ss;

D. The Effect of the Use on the Market for the Original, p. 44 ss.

In conclusione , la corte esamina anche la questione (logicamente a monte) del se l’opera di W. sia substantially similar allo scatto di G. (p, 51 ss): e naturalmente risponde di si, p. 55

vedi Commento in .