Counsel Q&A: Why Richard Prince judgments are ‘very pro-art’
Two photographers took on a highly successful attribution artist and won before their cases got to trial. Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, David Marriott at Cravath, tells Sarah Speight why the legal action “wasn’t really about money”.
Picture the scene: a controversial ‘attribution’ artist, suggested to be the Andy Warhol of Instagram, bases two of his new works on Insta posts by two (successful in their own right) photographers, and two art galleries exhibit the work.
The defendant, no stranger to being hit with copyright infringement litigation (Cariou v Prince, for example)—who once said “copyright has never interested me”—is sued by the photographers.
Echoes of Warhol v Goldsmith? Absolutely.
Jump to January, 2024. A New York district court approves final judgments in the two lawsuits, which are described as “groundbreaking” and "among the most important fair use decisions in decades”.
So said the Copyright Alliance’s CEO Keith Kupferschmid, adding that the judgments provide insights into how the Supreme Court decision in Andy Warhol Foundation v Goldsmith will impact future copyright cases involving fair use.
