To the Editor:In “The Supreme Court Is Wrong About Andy Warhol” (Opinion guest essay, June 10), Richard Meyer gets to the truth about the artist in the last sentence: “His art, like all good art, was not created to abide by the law.”But we all live under law, including copyright law.
According to Professor Meyer, “Had [Warhol] known about fair use, the artist likely would have been little concerned with legal repercussions.” Well, Warhol and his lawyers most likely knew the elements of the “fair use” defense because while they were not codified until 1976, those principles date back to Judge Joseph Story’s historic 1841 opinion in Folsom v. Marsh.
Warhol may be a “towering figure in modern art,” as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent last month in Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, but the court, in a 7-to-2 opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, fairly concluded that the work of the photographer Lynn Goldsmith was entitled to copyright protection “even against famous artists.”Keith DanishLeonia, N.J.
The writer is a retired attorney who specialized in intellectual property law.
Persons:
Andy Warhol ”, Richard Meyer, Meyer, “, Warhol, Joseph Story’s, . Marsh, Elena Kagan, Goldsmith, Sonia Sotomayor, Lynn Goldsmith, ” Keith Danish Leonia
Organizations:
Warhol Foundation
Locations:
Folsom, ., N.J