Posted on 03/29/2022 3:12:57 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Andy Warhol was Catholic, gay, and attempted to be (with varying reports of his success) celibate. He was incredibly talented, able to free-hand draw a circle with unrivaled perfection. And he was hugely conservative. His obsession with Campbell’s soup was based on the fact that as a child, he was very sickly and his mom was a single, working mom; she could often feed him nothing but soup, but he thought that the fact that there were so many dozens of kinds of Campbell’s soup was a miracle of American industriousness. He tried to praise God in such ordinary miracles; turning common pop culture into religion-inspired icons.
The tension between his deep faith and his sexuality was an artistic focus of his; he struggled with why God had allowed him to be incapable of having a family or joining the priesthood (unlike so many corrupt bishops, he believed his homosexuality rendered him incapable of the priesthood), so he was in turns angry at God and deeply worshipful.
Ruthenian Catholic, which I think is a subset of Eastern Orthodox.
The tension between his deep faith and his sexuality was an artistic focus of his; he struggled with why God had allowed him to be incapable of having a family or joining the priesthood (unlike so many corrupt bishops, he believed his homosexuality rendered him incapable of the priesthood), so he was in turns angry at God and deeply worshipful
Whoa, that is way deep.
All I was conveying was that my mother grew up in the same neighborhood, as Andy Warhol(Warhola).
No, Ruthenian Catholics are Catholics, they just use a different rite than the western Catholics. They were originally part of the Orthodox, but then united with the Catholic Church in the 1600s.
Thanks.
If it was never published then how did Warhol get the picture? Did he buy it? If so Warhol would own the rights.
I don’t see how Goldsmith has standing.
Additionally if he didn’t notice the infringement for 40 years, then there’s insufficient evidence of a copyright infringement. And if he did notice it 40 years ago, then he waived the copyright by waiting too long to complain.
The rights were likely retained by the artist unless specifically signed away to Newsweek. (State laws vary on artist’s rights; the state I live in is artist-friendly on copyright issues)
For Newsweek, they’d rather pay a one-time publish fee (say $5,000) than a buyout fee (say, $15,000) on the use of the image. Newsweek might have had a 3 month window of exclusivity, after which the artist could resell the photo.
Assuming that Prince claimed no ownership (unlikely that he would, unless he had commissioned and paid for the session), the artist would have had full ownership.
As for ‘derivative use’ by Warhol, it seems to me a slippery slope if the Justices can’t clearly define what constitutes a violation. And, as you say, the delay in claiming infringement is troubling for the photographer.
It may be that SCOTUS took the case with the intent of broadening the rights of derivative users (ie. meme creators). I guess we’ll find out.
/my 2c, ymmv
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.