That may be the issue in another sentence of the judgment pointed out by Adler. There, the court described how “subtle alterations” to another’s image, such as Warhol’s alteration to Goldsmith’s image, add color to her black-and-white image. Trimming alone may not be enough to allow reuse.
But then there is the basic concept behind appropriation art: appropriation works. because I rarely change the source. These are very similar to commercial products, for example Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup and the classic case of Brillo boxes. “The fact that you’ve accepted this and haven’t changed it, that’s where the power is and where the law has a hard time addressing it,” Dohringer said.
Among the fierce objections, Justice Elena Kagan seemed to agree, reprimanding that the majority would simply “go back to school” to learn the basics of art history. (She cites this author, among others, in her dissent.) Joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., the dissent was a majority decision, “Warhol’s artistry and social commentary.” All of this is denied by one thing: Warhol is licensed.” His portrait was published in magazines, and Goldsmith occasionally allowed her photograph to be published in magazines. That is the essence of the majority opinion. ”
Cagan argues that the majority apply an “analysis of commercialism over creativity” and argues that any work that two artists might have applied for a license, even if they were fairly similar in appearance. Art portrait photography and silkscreen appropriation art work that you don’t care that it would have been of a completely different kind. So if two works are fundamentally dissimilar, you don’t have to pay for diversion just to exist side-by-side with their source.
“Creative progress unfolds through use and reuse, framing and reframing. One work builds on the previous; and subsequent works build on that work. As time goes on, it continues,” Cagan writes. “By refusing to recognize the transformative importance of copy, the court today, and for the first time, turned its back on how creativity works,” she concluded.
