"T.B. Sheets" is a blues-influenced song written and recorded by Northern Irish singer-songwriter Van Morrison. Bang Records issued the song on his first solo album, Blowin' Your Mind! (1967).  It later appeared on the Bang compilation T.B. Sheets.

Recording
"T.B. Sheets" was recorded on 29 March 1967 at A & R Recording Studios In New York City with Bert Berns as the producer. Morrison had intended to record it in one take, but there were two takes recorded that day.

There is a long-standing, but perhaps apocryphal, story of Morrison's emotional state during the song's recording. Michael Ochs, in the liner notes for the 1973 album T.B. Sheets, wrote that "after 'T.B. Sheets' was recorded, the rest of the session had to be cancelled because Van broke down in tears." Likewise, according to John Collis, Morrison could later joke about this song. "I'm writing 'T.B. Sheets Part II' now," he said in 1972. "Keeping the same riff, the same groove." However, it's on record – though the story could be exaggerated – that after laying down this track he broke down in tears, unable to continue the session.

Composition

The story as told in the song takes place in a room where a young girl lies dying of tuberculosis and is visited by the story-teller. The overwhelming pain and guilt he feels leads to a desperate feeling of wanting to escape from the enclosed room smelling of death and disease.

Critical reactions
The AllMusic review includes, "The listener is placed in the room. Although somewhat disturbing, it certainly describes the term realism with one bold masterful stroke".

John Collis described the song's meaning as: "First of all, the singer chides the terminally ill invalid for crying. 'It ain't natural,' he says. The woman cries all night and the observer, trapped in the death room, is embarrassed and helpless. Later in the song, the sun bouncing off a crack in the window pane 'numbs my brain'... And then there's the crushing claustrophobia of the sickroom 'Let me breathe,' he demands of the woman whose breath is failing, bubbling in cheesy lungs. There is a street below, a street she'll never walk in again, and he is getting desperate to be down there, to rejoin the living, because 'the cool room is a fool's room'.

Brian Hinton described the song's music: "Here is a Dickensian tale of death and decay in a big city. Organ and drums go free form, then a stately groove, fitting Van's voice like a garrote, led by nagging lead guitar. Van's harmonica hurts the ear, then he's like a terrier, lecturing his girlfriend, 'Julie,' about it not being natural her staying awake at night, dying."

A Paste review by Steve Labate commented on the theme of the song: "'T.B. Sheets' is one of the most real songs about death you'll ever hear. As life saps steadily from the singer's beloved, tuberculosis-ridden Julie, there is no trite drama, no nostalgic sugar coating or grand deathbed epiphany, but rather an 'Is That All There Is?' fatalism—a mild, detached, slowly-suffocating bleakness. 'The sunlight shining through the crack in the window pane numbs my brain,' Morrison moans over a skittering Hammond organ."

Legacy

"T.B. Sheets" featured in the 1999 Martin Scorsese movie Bringing Out the Dead.

Ghostface Killah samples the song on his 2006 song "Greedy Bitches".

Lydia Lunch and Cypress Grove included a cover on their 2014 album A Fistful of Desert Blues.

Notes

References
Collis, John (1996). Inarticulate Speech of the Heart Little Brown and Company,
Hinton, Brian (1997). Celtic Crossroads: The Art of Van Morrison,  Sanctuary,
Heylin, Clinton (2003). Can You Feel the Silence? Van Morrison: A New Biography, Chicago Review Press,

External links
[ AllMusic  Review: T.B. Sheets]

1967 songs
Van Morrison songs
Songs written by Van Morrison

T.B. Sheets


The Pyrotechnics Guild International or PGI founded in 1969 is an independent worldwide nonprofit organization of amateur and professional fireworks enthusiasts.  Its membership is the largest pyrotechnic community in the world.

The Guild has a yearly convention. People from all over the world come to this event that lasts for about a week.

Educational and scientific purposes
The PGI strives to promote the safe and responsible display and use of pyrotechnics and fireworks. Fireworks display operator training is offered, as well as classes on specific safety and legality issues.

The PGI was founded by Max P. Vanderhorck a former meteorologist from San Diego California fueled by his love for fireworks and the preservation of what seemed (at the time) like a dying American Tradition.

The PGI encourages the display of public and private fireworks in conjunction with local and national holidays as well as patriotic and other events. Fireworks are a part of our heritage, and only through their responsible use will they continue to be available.

The PGI promotes the production and sale of high quality fireworks. Vendors who are found to be exceptional are invited to display fireworks during the PGI annual convention, as well as to advertise in the quarterly bulletins.

The PGI helps channel the creative energies of talented people into the design, production and display of high quality fireworks by example of the membership and through the sharing of knowledge. Many of these talented people would not know each other if they had not been united by the PGI. Information sharing occurs through the quarterly bulletins, during the week of the convention, and through an online mailing list.

Major Activities
1. The PGI Annual Convention: a week-long event held in early August, in a variety of locations. The convention includes many hands-on activities, such as classes and seminars, and construction of the "Superstring". There are nightly fireworks displays, each one bigger than the last, as well as fireworks sales and competitions.

2. The PGI Bulletin: a quality periodical published five times per year, containing guild news, pyrotechnic articles, historical articles, and advertising.

3. The PGI Website: providing access and information both to members and the general public.

4. The PGI Display Operators' Certification Course: offering comprehensive classroom instruction, field demonstrations, and written testing for potential display operators.

Friends of the PGI
The Fireworks Foundation, a non-profit group which works to ensure, in perpetuity, the existence of hobbyist fireworks and clubs.

The American Pyrotechnics Association, the premier trade association of the fireworks industry, founded in 1948.

Local or regional fireworks clubs which allow their members to safely and legally engage in fireworks related activities such as learning what is involved in designing and setting up a display, how various fireworks are made or simply enjoying the show.

History

The Pyrotechnics Guild International was founded in 1969 by Max P. Vander Horck, then publisher of a monthly fireworks newsletter titled "American Pyrotechnist." Max envisioned the establishment of an organization for fireworks enthusiasts, whose goal would be not only to educate themselves regarding pyrotechnics, but the media, politicians and public as well.

In March 1969 he announced to his subscribers that membership was available in a newly founded organization called the Pyrotechnics Guild International, and the PGI was born. The membership expanded for a few years and in 1974 a formal charter and bylaws were drawn up, officers elected, and formal incorporation accomplished (in Illinois), and the PGI became the PGI, Inc.

Current membership stands at over 3,500. Members are from all walks of life, and range from people with just a passing interest all the way up to hard-core fireworks enthusiasts. Many regional clubs have sprung up over the last few years and have their own agenda of fireworks related activities.

See also

 Green Man (PGI)

References

External links

 PGI History

Pyrotechnics
Advocacy groups in the United States
Organizations established in 1969

Pyrotechnics Guild International


Tropical Depression Sixteen was the sixteenth, and weakest, tropical cyclone of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season. Sixteen formed from a strong tropical disturbance off the eastern shores of Nicaragua on October 13. The disturbance quickly turned into a tropical depression the next day while being very close to the coastline. Because of its close distance towards land, the depression was not able to form strong convection, which was the reason why it did not become stronger. Once off the northern shores of Honduras, the depression became disorganized, but was able to strengthen a little bit, reaching its peak intensity with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h) on the afternoon of October 15. The depression then moved onshore and quickly died out by the next morning.

A lot of rainfall from the depression started deadly flooding in Central America which left at least 75 people dead and forcing 100,000 people to move, and being responsible for $150 million in damage.

Storm history

On the afternoon of October 13, a large area of low pressure formed in the southwestern Caribbean Sea, about 160 mi (160 km) east-southeast of Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua.  The low was found in a place that was good for development and a tropical cyclone formation alert was given out soon after the low formed.  The low slowly became better organized and was thought to have turned into a tropical depression the next morning while it was 50 mi (80 km) northeast of the Nicaragua/Honduras border. The depression was predicted to move across from the coastline, and later move to the west when it was north of Honduras, and by then make landfall in Belize as a tropical storm with winds of 65 mph (105 km/h) on October 18.

But the convection that was associated with the depression went away and the whole structure of the storm started to get worse.  The depression stayed disorganized during the morning, in spite of curved banding traits forming, they stayed far from the center of circulation.  In the late afternoon, the depression mooved onto the northern coastline of Honduras with winds still at 30 mph (45 km/h).  Even though being over land and still being disorganized, the depression became a little bit more strong enough to reach its peak intensity of 35 mph (55 km/h) on the afternoon of October 15. This happened because of a mistake of a QuikSCAT satellite pass a ship, with the code H3VR, reporting 38 mph (61 km/h) sustained winds, and a buoy report. However, the winds were actually though to have been weaker than what was said because of the ridge of high pressure that was over the southern United States.  The final advisory on the depression was given out the next morning as it turned back into a remnant low.

Preparations and impact
The National Hurricane Center gave out a lot of tropical storm watches while the storm was still alive, while in Costa Rica a red alert warning was put into effect across much of the country, and more than 100,000 people were told to move to safer places. Because the depression never became a tropical storm, tropical storm-conditions were not felt in the watch areas.

Heavy rains from the depression's remnant low left at least 16 people dead and six missing and forced 100,000 other people from their homes across Central America. The depression destroyed bridges, flooded villages and blocked roads.  Total damage is thought to be at about $150 million (2008 USD).

Related pages
 2008 Atlantic hurricane season

References

Other websites
 HPC rainfall page for 2008 Tropical Cyclones
 National Hurricane Center Website
 National Hurricane Center's Atlantic Tropical Weather Outlook

Tropical depressions
2008 Atlantic hurricane season
October 2008 events
2008 in North America

Tropical Depression Sixteen (2008)


Big Fish is a 2003 American fantasy adventure comedy-drama movie based on the 1998 novel of the same name by Daniel Wallace. The movie was directed by Tim Burton, produced by Richard D. Zanuck.

Plot
Albert Finney plays Edward Bloom, a former traveling salesman from the Southern United States with a gift for storytelling, now confined to his deathbed. Bloom's estranged son, a journalist played by Billy Crudup, attempts to mend their relationship as his dying father relates tall tales of his eventful life as a young adult, played by Ewan McGregor.

Cast
It stars Ewan McGregor, Albert Finney, Billy Crudup, Jessica Lange, and Marion Cotillard. Other roles are performed by Helena Bonham Carter, Steve Buscemi, Matthew McGrory, Missi Pyle, Miley Cyrus, Deep Roy, Robert Guillaume and Danny DeVito.

Awards
The movie received award nominations in multiple movie categories, including four Golden Globe Award nominations, seven nominations from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, two Saturn Award nominations, and an Academy Award and a Grammy Award nomination for Danny Elfman's original score.

Other websites

 Big Fish at Montgomery Advertiser

2003 comedy-drama movies
2000s American fantasy movies
2000s English-language movies
Movies about fish
Movies about giants
Movies about witchcraft
Movies directed by Tim Burton
Werewolves in movies

Big Fish


A weather map is a tool. It shows facts about the weather quickly.  Weather maps have been used from the mid-19th century, for study and for weather forecasting. Some maps show differences of temperature, and weather fronts.

A station model is a symbolic picture showing the weather at a reporting station. Meteorologists made the station model to put down many weather elements in a small space on weather maps. Maps thickly filled with station-model plots can be hard to read. However, they help meteorologists, pilots, and mariners to see important weather patterns. A computer draws a station model for every place of observation. The station model is mostly used for surface-weather maps. It can also be used to show the weather in the sky, though. A complete station-model map lets people study patterns in air pressure, temperature, wind, cloud cover, and precipitation.

History

People first began using weather charts in a modern way in the mid-19th century. They began using them to make a theory about storm systems. When a telegraph network developed by 1845, it was possible for people to collect information about the weather. They could get the information from many different places far away quickly enough for the information to be useful. In the 1840s, Joseph Henry took charge. He helped the Smithsonian Institution focus most of its observers on the center and the eastern part of the United States during the 1840s and 1860s.  The U.S. Army Signal Corps kept up this network between 1870 and 1874 by an act of Congress. It later expanded to the Western United States.

At first, all the data on the map was not taken from these analyses. This was because there was not enough time standardization. People first tried to standardize time in Great Britain in 1855. The entire United States was not influenced by time zones (areas with different times) until 1906. This was when Detroit had made the standard time at last. Over all the earth, other countries began taking weather observations at the same time. This started in 1873.

References

Meteorology

Weather map


"Feeling Good" (or "Feelin' Good") is a jazz ballad. It was written by English composers Anthony Newley and Leslie Bricusse for the musical The Roar of the Greasepaint – The Smell of the Crowd. It was first performed on stage in 1964 by Cy Grant on the UK tour and by Gilbert Price in 1965 with the original Broadway cast.

Nina Simone recorded "Feeling Good" for her 1965 album I Put a Spell on You.  The ballad was then performed again and covered by Michael Bublé and Muse, along with others throughout the years. The song has been also sampled in other recording artists' music.

In addition to Buble and Muse, the song has been covered by Sammy Davis Jr., Traffic, John Coltrane, George Michael, Victory, Eels, Joe Bonamassa, Eden, Black Cat Bones, Bassnectar, Sophie B. Hawkins, Leslie West, Avicii, Chlöe and Lauryn Hill. It was performed by John Legend as part of the Celebrating America performance marking the inauguration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on January 20th 2021.

1964 songs
Jazz pop songs
George Michael songs
Frank Sinatra songs
Nina Simone songs
The Pussycat Dolls songs
Muse songs
John Coltrane songs
Sophie B. Hawkins songs
Traffic (band) songs
Avicii songs
Lauryn Hill songs
Michael Bublé songs

Feeling Good


In the University of Southern California athletics scandal, the University of Southern California (USC) was investigated and punished for NCAA rules violations in the Trojan football, men's basketball and women's tennis programs.

The sanctions were announced on June 10, 2010, and affected the USC football program from 2010 to 2012. Sanctions for the football team included postseason bans (2 years), scholarship losses (3 years), vacating old games (including a BCS Championship game), and disassociating with Reggie Bush. Separately, Bush returned his Heisman Trophy. USC head coach Pete Carroll also left USC shortly before sanctions were announced.

Background
Probes by both USC and the NCAA found that football star Reggie Bush, the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner, and basketball star O. J. Mayo had effectively forfeited their amateur status (in Mayo's case, before he ever played a game for USC) by accepting gifts from agents. In addition, the women's tennis team was cited in the report for unauthorized phone calls made by a former player. As a result of the ongoing investigation, which progressed well into the 2010–11 seasons for both USC and Reggie Bush's New Orleans Saints, Bush voluntarily gave up his 2005 Heisman Trophy, which the Heisman Trust decided to leave vacant.

Punishment
As a result of sanctions issued by both USC and the NCAA, the Trojan athletic program received some of the harshest penalties ever meted out to a Division 1 program. The football team was forced to vacate the final two wins of its 2004 national championship season, as well as all of its wins in 2005. It was also banned from bowl games in both 2010 and 2011 and was docked 30 scholarships over three years. The basketball team gave up all of its wins from the 2007-08 season and sat out postseason play in 2010. The NCAA accepted USC's earlier elimination of its women's tennis wins between November 2006 and May 2009 and did not sanction the team further.

Shortly after the NCAA handed out its penalties, the Football Writers Association of America announced it would no longer recognize the Trojans as its 2004 national champion. In June 2011, the Bowl Championship Series stripped the Trojans of the 2004 BCS title, though the Associated Press still recognizes the Trojans as its national champions for 2004.

Bush is the first person in the Heisman Trophy's history to give his trophy back to the Heisman Trust, and the 2005 season is the only one in the award's history for which there is no winner.

Criticism of sanctions
These sanctions have been criticized by some NCAA football writers, including ESPN's Ted Miller, who wrote, "It's become an accepted fact among informed college football observers that the NCAA sanctions against USC were a travesty of justice, and the NCAA's refusal to revisit that travesty are a massive act of cowardice on the part of the organization."

Miller also suggested that the sanctions had more to do with objections to the football culture at USC than its alleged noncompliance with NCAA rules:

During a flight delay last year, I was cornered at an airport by an administrator from a major program outside the Pac-12. He made fun of me as a "USC fanboy" because of my rants against the NCAA ruling against the Trojans. But we started talking. Turned out he agreed with just about all my points. (He just didn't like USC.)

He told me, after some small talk and off-the-record, that "everybody" thought USC got screwed. He said that he thought the NCAA was trying to scare everyone with the ruling, but subsequent major violations cases put it in a pickle.

Then he told me that USC was punished for its "USC-ness," that while many teams had closed down access — to media, to fans, etc. — USC under Pete Carroll was completely open, and that was widely resented. There was a widespread belief the national media fawned on USC because of this. Further, more than a few schools thought that the presence of big-time celebrities, such as Snoop Dogg and Will Ferrell, at practices and at games constituted an unfair recruiting advantage for the Trojans.

It wasn't against the rules, but everyone hated it. This, as he assessed his own smell test, was a subtext of the so-called atmosphere of noncompliance that the NCAA referred to — an atmosphere that oddly yielded very few instances of noncompliance around the football program even after a four-year NCAA investigation.

In February 2014, in a talk on the campus of USC, former coach and recent Super Bowl winner Pete Carroll said about the sanctions, "I thought (the NCAA's investigation into USC) was dealt with poorly and very irrationally and done with way too much emotion instead of facts. I sat in the meetings. I listened to the people talk. I listened to the venom that they had for our program... They tried to make it out like it was something else. They made a terrible error."

Comparison with later scandals
Further criticism of the sanctions came during later NCAA's investigations into other programs such as the University of Miami and University of Oregon for recruiting violations, all of which led to substantially more lenient punishments than USC's for arguably greater offenses. This has led many people to think that the NCAA's sanctions of USC were intended to make an example out of the school to other programs that the NCAA hasn't followed through on with other college programs.

Most notable of these scandals was that against Miami, because of the involvement of Paul Dee. Dee was the Committee on Infractions chairman for USC's NCAA investigation. It was Dee who announced the USC penalties and closed with the reminder that "high-profile athletes demand high-profile compliance." Accusations later came out that, while Dee was athletic director there, Miami had also been the center of major improper benefits, specifically that of university booster Nevin Shapiro from 2002 until 2010. Writers noted the hypocrisy of Miami's more lenient punishment (loss of nine scholarships and three years) compared to USC's, despite Miami committing more serious infractions through university employees over a longer time. One writer stated: "it seems only fair [Dee] should spend a day at USC's Heritage Hall wearing a sandwich board with the word "Hypocrite."

In 2014, USC's sanctions once again became a talking point because of the Penn State child sex abuse scandal. Sanctions against Penn State, which included a four-year bowl ban and forty lost scholarships, were significantly reduced after two years. USC petitioned the NCAA for similar leniency but was denied, the NCAA finding the situations to be distinguishable. This incident led to more outcry over the inconsistency of punishment by the NCAA, and its seeming bias against USC.

Todd McNair lawsuit against the NCAA
Todd McNair, a running backs assistant coach at USC, sued the NCAA in June 2011, claiming that the NCAA's investigation was one-sided and his future earnings were impaired by its report on the scandal that led to sanctions against USC. The NCAA determined McNair lied about knowing about some of the gifts to Bush's family.

On November 21, 2012, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Frederick Shaller ruled that the NCAA was "malicious" in its investigation of McNair. In his ruling, the Judge stated that e-mails between an investigative committee member, an NCAA worker, and a person who works in the agency's appeals division "tend to show ill will or hatred" toward McNair. In an e-mail, one staffer called McNair "a lying morally bankrupt criminal, in my view, and a hypocrite of the highest order." Judge Shaller said he would unseal the entire inquiry into McNair in December. "I understand [why] the NCAA wants to keep this quiet," the Judge said. "But I'm not going to seal the record... I know you guys are going to appeal it but from my part.. There's no reason to seal it. I think the public has a right to know."

However, on 19 December 2012, the NCAA requested and was granted a stay of Judge Shaller's order to unseal the files, much of which contain e-mails from NCAA staff personnel and committee members to one another. As a result of the stay, files regarding the NCAA's investigation into USC remained sealed until the California Appellate Court ruled on the NCAA's appeal.

In February 2015, the California appellate court ruled that the NCAA cannot seal the estimated 400 pages of material regarding McNair's defamation lawsuit. The NCAA may petition the appellate court for a rehearing as well as take the matter to the California Supreme Court.

In July 2021, McNair and the NCAA settled the lawsuit through mediation. Financial terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

References

2006 Pacific-10 Conference football season
2008–09 Pacific-10 Conference men's basketball season
University sports scandals
College basketball controversies in the United States
College football controversies
NCAA sanctions
Scandal
USC Trojans football
USC Trojans men's basketball


Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith (598 U.S. ___, 2023) is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with transformative use, a component of fair use, under U.S. copyright law. At issue was the Prince Series created by Andy Warhol based on a photograph of the musician Prince by Lynn Goldsmith. It held Warhol's changes were insufficiently transformative to fall within fair use for commercial purposes, resolving an issue arising from a split between the Second and Ninth circuits among others.

Goldsmith had taken her photograph in 1981 on assignment for Newsweek and retained copyright on it afterwards; it was not published. Three years later Vanity Fair licensed the image for Andy Warhol to use as a reference for a silkscreen illustration of Prince to be published, by agreement with Goldsmith, only once, with her credited. But Warhol used the image as the basis for his Prince Series without asking or notifying Goldsmith; she only learned of the images' existence when Vanity Fairs publisher, Condé Nast, used one as the cover image, with no attribution, for a special tribute magazine to Prince after his death in 2016, which was licensed by the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF). Litigation ensued in federal court between Goldsmith and the Warhol Foundation, which has administered the artist's works since his death, over whether Warhol's reuse of the image had infringed her copyright. The Southern District of New York sided with the foundation in 2019, but was reversed by the Second Circuit two years later.

The Second Circuit's reversal relied in part on a "clarification" of its 2013 holding in Cariou v. Prince, to the effect that a secondary work was not necessarily transformative of the original just because it was aesthetically different; it must also serve a distinguishably different artistic purpose, which Warhol's work, when used on a magazine cover to depict Prince, did not. Legal commentators, including Nimmer on Copyright and another appellate circuit, had criticized Cariou in particular and the Second Circuit in general as giving too great a weight to transformative use in determining fair use,

In May 2023, the Court ruled 7–2 that AWF's use of Goldsmith's photographs was not protected by fair use. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority that as the works shared a similar purpose in the depiction of Prince in magazine articles, and the commercial nature of the product. Her opinion contained many footnotes disparaging Justice Elena Kagan's combative dissent, which was equally harsh on the majority as she defended the value of transformation in art. Commentators in the art world feared for the future of appropriation art, popular with artists inspired by Warhol like Richard Prince and Jeff Koons, if artists were to be deterred from creating works by fears of litigation or prohibitive license fees.

Background

Fair use

Fair use, the unlicensed use of material copyrighted by others in secondary works, was long accepted under English common law, but not well defined. Within U.S. copyright law, federal judge Joseph Story, later a Supreme Court justice, identified three aspects of fair use to be judged by a court in an 1841 case, Folsom v. Marsh, holding that the republication of some of George Washington's letters by a second writer was infringing:
 the "nature and objects of the selections made",
 the "quantity and value of the materials used", and
 the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work"
After over a century of remaining in case law, Congress codified fair use in the Copyright Act of 1976. Story's three factors became four, with the second split into the nature of the original work, and the amount of it reused. In 1985 the Supreme Court gave courts guidance on how to apply them in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, a case stemming from the unauthorized publication of the leaked memoirs of former President Gerald R. Ford, even as it held that fair use did not apply as the claimed defense, the public's right to know about matters of considerable historical import such as Ford's decision to pardon his predecessor, was insufficient.

Transformative use

Courts remained uncertain enough that five years later, another federal judge, Pierre Leval, then sitting on the Southern District of New York (SDNY), which hears many copyright cases, wrote a Harvard Law Review article, "Toward a Fair Use Standard", outlining more specific ideas. He reviewed cases considering fair use to date, Harper & Row included but also cases the Southern District and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which has appellate jurisdiction over it, had considered. In considering the first factor, the purpose of the secondary work, Leval said courts should strongly consider whether it was "transformative" of the original:

He cautioned that such use would not suffice to establish fair use by itself; it could easily be offset by other factors that might weigh in the copyright owner's favor.

Four years later the Supreme Court accepted the concept, citing Leval in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., a case that settled a longstanding question over whether parody constituted fair use. In holding that rap group 2 Live Crew's parody of Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman", which the publisher had refused to license to them, was not an infringement, the Court held transformative use to be something judges could consider in assessing the first factor. "Although such transformative use is not absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use," wrote Justice David Souter for a unanimous Court, "the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works. Such works thus lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine's guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright."

Appropriation art and copyright

In the latter decades of the 20th century, pop artists like Andy Warhol and Robert Rauschenberg reacted to consumer culture and the increasing amount of mass-produced imagery in the media, particularly advertising, by using those images in their own art, sometimes as their own, a practice termed "appropriation art". In two instances this led to lawsuits. Warhol settled a 1966 claim brought by the photographer whose image he had used as the basis of his Flowers Series. Fourteen years later Rauschenberg similarly settled with a photographer whose work he had used; until then he had argued fair use with arguments similar to those now accepted as transformative use.

Jeff Koons and Richard Prince became prominent in the art scene during the 1980s, both relying on repurposing the work of others, likewise drawing suit. A sculpture recreating a postcard that Koons had found and torn the copyright notice off was held not to be fair use by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Rogers v. Koons, since it was so similar to the original as to make it "difficult to discern" the parody Koons claimed his work was. He lost at trial the next year over his unauthorized use of Odie from the Garfield comic strip. Neither case considered transformative use; they were decided after Leval's paper but before Campbell.

But 12 years later, with transformative use more clearly established, Koons prevailed when fashion photographer Andrea Blanch alleged his use of part of a photograph she had taken infringed her copyright. Since he had used merely the woman's lower legs and shoes from Blanch's work, changed their angle and put them on a different background with three other sets of women's lower legs from other images as part of a collage, the Second Circuit held that Koons had more than sufficiently transformed Blanch's image to claim fair use. The Supreme Court's test in Campbell, it said, "almost perfectly describes" what Koons had done.

Cariou v. Prince

Photographer Patrick Cariou sued Richard Prince in 2008 over the latter's Canal Zone exhibit, which repurposed 30 images from Cariou's 2000 book Yes, Rasta into 28 paintings, some minimally altered from their originals while others were used in collages. The case attracted considerable attention in the art world since the Southern District held in Cariou's favor and issued an injunction calling for the most severe remedy available under copyright law: the confiscation and/or destruction of any of Prince's unsold copies of his work, and the exhibition catalogs. It was feared the verdict would be a chilling effect on appropriation art. Trial judge Deborah Batts ruled that Prince had not sufficiently transformed most of Cariou's photos, since in his testimony he had eschewed any intended comment on them. She also found Prince and the Gagosian Gallery, which exhibited Canal Zone, acted in bad faith since it had sold Prince's work without investigating the permission status of the original work despite being aware he regularly used others' work and Cariou's contact information and copyright notice being readily available in his book.

On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed. The panel held that Batts had erred by requiring that transformative use be seen as commenting on the original work, or something greater; it was enough that his alterations had changed the mood of the images. Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr. wrote for the panel:

The court held 25 of the 30 images transformative and remanded the other five to the district court to assess them under its standard, vacating the injunction until that decision could be made, a decision hailed by the arts community. In 2014 Cariou and Prince settled the case before that could happen.

Cariou was criticized for expanding the role of transformative use to the point that it alone might become dispositive of the entire fair use inquiry. The following year, in Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation, while affirming a finding of transformative use of a photograph of a local official used on a T-shirt making fun of him, Judge Frank Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit wrote:

"[A] finding of transformativeness shifts the analysis of the other factors so as to render them insignificant" wrote copyright lawyer Kim Landsman two years after Cariou, drawing on earlier research showing that courts had increasingly minimized the question of commercial reuse in favor of transformativeness since 2005. "It would seem that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of recognizing any alteration as transformative, such that this doctrine now threatens to swallow fair use", wrote Nimmer on Copyright, a widely-cited guide to the law in that area, after the case, calling for a "correction", a comment the Second Circuit itself acknowledged in a 2016 case even as it called Cariou a "high-water mark" for transformative use in its case law.

Underlying dispute

In 1981 photographer Lynn Goldsmith took a series of photographs of Prince at the start of his musical career. Following the release of Prince's Purple Rain in 1984, the magazine Vanity Fair, a Condé Nast publication, licensed one of those photos, a single black and white full length portrait photograph (previously unpublished), for a planned feature; It was agreed the photograph would be used as an "artistic reference" for an illustration that would be used only once. The magazine then commissioned pop-art artist Andy Warhol to create a highly colorized silkscreen using just Prince's head from the photograph, illustrating the feature, "Purple Fame". Goldsmith shared credit.

Warhol created 16 variants of the Prince portrait between 1984 and his death in 1987, collectively known as the Prince Series, including the notable 1984 Orange Prince variant. All of 16 works remained in Warhol's private collection whilst he was alive and after his death were managed by the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts (AWF). The Prince Series works have been exhibited many times in museum shows and galleries around the world including the Museum of Modern Art, Tate and The Andy Warhol Museum.

After Prince's death in 2016, Condé Nast published a commemorative magazine looking back on his life with one of the Prince Series variants as the cover image. Despite licensing the photograph and the co- credit in Vanity Fair, Goldsmith alleged that she had been unaware of the existence of the illustration and the Prince Series until she saw the Condé Nast cover. Condé Nast credited the Foundation and did not mention her.

Preliminary rulings
Goldsmith informed the Foundation that she believed these additional works were copyright violations of her photograph and stated her intent to seek legal action. The Foundation filed for a preliminary ruling in the Southern District of New York, stating in court papers that it felt like a "shakedown". Goldsmith filed a counterclaim seeking to have the Warhol image declared an infringement of her copyright.

District court

In 2019, Judge John G. Koeltl granted the Foundation's motion. He held that Warhol had sufficiently transformed Goldsmith's original photograph under fair use as to show the change of Prince "from a vulnerable, uncomfortable person to an iconic, larger-than-life figure". The Foundation had also argued that Goldsmith's claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations under the Copyright Act of 1976, but he cited precedent in the Second and other circuits that the statute of limitations for an infringement claim starts when the copyright owner has actual or constructive knowledge of the infringement, not when the allegedly infringing work was created. He also noted that Goldsmith had claimed the infringement occurred with the 2016 licensing to Condé Nast, not Warhol's original creation of the work, rendering her claim timely.

The core of Koeltl's opinion was the application of the four factors—commercial vs. non-commercial use, expressive vs. non-expressive nature, the portion of the original work used and whether the secondary work harms market opportunities for the original—a court considers in a copyright claim where fair use is asserted as a defense.

Koeltl observed that although the Prince Series works were primarily commercial, several had been donated to museums, and the Foundation used profits from licensing Warhol's works to support its programs, so its work could also be said to support the public interest in the visual arts as a whole, meaning the work was not purely commercial. "In any event," he continued, "the Prince Series works are transformative, and therefore the import of their (limited) commercial nature is diluted." Warhol had taken the "vulnerable human being" of Goldsmith's photograph and, by cropping it to the musician's head, strengthening the contrast and adding loud, unnatural colors,

Koeltl's analysis relied heavily on Cariou.

On the second factor, whether the original photograph had been expressive enough to create a higher bar for the Foundation to establish transformative use, Koeltl found for neither party. Goldsmith's argument that the photograph had never been published would, he allowed, ordinarily settle the matter in her favor. But in this instance she had licensed it to be used as Warhol's reference. His finding of transformative use also further mitigated the importance of this factor.

Goldsmith argued that the third factor, the portion of the original work used, still favored her despite Warhol's use of only Prince's face from her work since that was the "essence" of her image. Koeltl looked to Kienitz, where Easterbrook wrote that "[d]efendants removed so much of the original that, as with the Cheshire Cat, only the smile remains." Likewise, in the instant case, "Warhol removed nearly all the photograph's protectible elements in creating the Prince Series", Koeltl wrote, as she could not copyright Prince's face nor his pose.

"Goldsmith wisely does not contend that Warhol's work has usurped her market for direct sales of [her p]hotograph", Koeltl wrote, beginning to consider the final factor. "It is plain that the markets for a Warhol and for a Goldsmith fine-art or other type of print are different." Instead she had claimed that the Prince Series posed future harm should she decide to market that photograph or others like it. Koeltl did not find this argument persuasive:

Since three of the four factors favored the Foundation, Koeltl granted it summary judgement.

Appeals court

Goldsmith appealed to the Second Circuit. She said on a GoFundMe page she had set up for the case that she had spent $400,000 by then and sought to raise $2 million. "I hope to define what is transformative under the fair use aspect of the copyright law so that no one else has to endure what I've had to, so that heirs to work can benefit from what was left to them, and so that  future creators who copyright their work will never have to battle for their rights against deep pocketed artists, businesses, or foundations", she wrote.

A panel consisting of circuit judges Gerard E. Lynch, Dennis Jacobs and Richard J. Sullivan reversed Koeltl's judgement in March 2021, allowing Goldsmith's lawsuit to proceed. It considered the same four factors but found that all of them favored Goldsmith's claim.

After reviewing the facts of the case, Lynch's majority opinion turned to the applicable case law, in particular Cariou. "While we remain bound by Cariou, and have no occasion or desire to question its correctness on its own facts, our review of the decision below persuades us that some clarification is in order" wrote Lynch.

The Supreme Court had stressed in its cases on fair use that "is a context-sensitive inquiry that does not lend itself to simple bright-line rules." Nonetheless, Lynch said, Koeltl:

Lynch focused on five of the 30 photos at issue in Cariou that the court had remanded to the district court, where Prince had painted over some aspects, including the subject's faces, as it could not find Prince had transformatively used them as examples of what did not automatically qualify as transformative fair use as a matter of law. And while the court considered film adaptations of novels to involve a great deal of transformation due to the many creative professionals involved and the wide range of choices possible, "[they] are identified as a paradigmatic example of derivative works", as the circuit had observed in Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust.

In considering the stated or assumed intent of the artist as a factor in determining transformative use, Lynch wrote, Koeltl erred: "The district judge should not assume the role of art critic and seek to ascertain the intent behind or meaning of the works at issue. That is so both because judges are typically unsuited to make aesthetic judgments and because such perceptions are inherently subjective." It was clear the Prince Series derived from Goldsmith's photograph, he said, and that the fair use defense for transformative works failed because Warhol's work "retains the essential elements of the Goldsmith photograph without significantly adding to or altering those elements." Lynch returned the area of film adaptations to make his point:

Lynch acknowledged that Warhol had removed some aspects of Goldsmith's photograph. But, "although we do not conclude that the Prince Series works are necessarily derivative works as a matter of law, they are much closer to presenting the same work in a different form, that form being a high-contrast screenprint, than they are to being works that make a transformative use of the original." He observed that the Prince Series was less transformative than the five works remanded in Cariou since "those works unmistakably deviated from Cariou's original portraiture in a manner that suggested an entirely distinct artistic end".

Lastly, Lynch also dismissed Koeltl's holding that by being recognizably "Warhols", the Prince Series were transformative: "Entertaining that logic would inevitably create a celebrity-plagiarist privilege; the more established the artist and the more distinct that artist's style, the greater leeway that artist would have to pilfer the creative labors of others." He concluded this portion of the opinion by reiterating that this finding was entirely a legal one and that the court was not expressing an aesthetic judgement on Warhol's work.

On the issue of commercial use, Lynch agreed with Koeltl that the Foundation's purpose in licensing the series and other Warhol works was not purely commercial. But while that slightly complicated the analysis, he considered it more relevant at other stages of the litigation, such as fashioning equitable remedies. "Nevertheless, just as we cannot hold that the Prince Series is transformative as a matter of law, neither can we conclude that Warhol and AWF are entitled to monetize it without paying Goldsmith the 'customary price' for the rights to her work, even if that monetization is used for the benefit of the public."

Lynch also held that Koeltl had erred in his finding on the second factor, the nature of the work. Just because Goldsmith had licensed it to Condé Nast for an artist to use as a reference did not make it published as she retained the right to decide if and when to publish it, Lynch said. "Having recognized the Goldsmith Photograph as both creative and unpublished, the district court should have found this factor to favor Goldsmith irrespective of whether it adjudged the Prince Series works transformative within the meaning of the first factor."

Lynch had more to say about the third factor, the amount of the original work used. The Foundation had argued, again, that Warhol removed the distinctive elements of the photograph and thus made the Prince Series distinctly his work. "[This] misses the mark", Lynch said.

The Prince Series images "are instantly recognizable as depictions or images of the Goldsmith Photograph itself", said Lynch. He noted that the Foundation had submitted as evidence other photos of Prince to support its contention, but to him they actually strengthened Goldsmith's case by demonstrating that the series would have looked very different had those other photos been used as the reference. "Indeed, Warhol's process had the effect of amplifying, rather than minimizing, certain aspects of the Goldsmith Photograph."

The Foundation had offered no evidence suggesting that Warhol was specifically interested in Goldsmith's photo as a reference, Lynch added. He also distinguished the case from Kienitz by noting that while the photo in that case had been drained of any resemblance to the original, "Warhol's rendition of the Goldsmith Photograph leaves quite a bit more detail, down to the glint in Prince's eyes where the umbrellas in Goldsmith's studio reflected off his pupils." That case was not binding precedent in the Second Circuit in any event.

In addressing the final factor, the effect on the market for the original work were the use to become widespread, Lynch again began by agreeing with Koeltl, that in this case the primary markets for Goldsmith's photograph and the Prince Series did not overlap. He disagreed with Koeltl's judgement that the Warhol image would not affect her licensing market for two reasons: the fact that she had not licensed the image did not mean she never would, since the court had to consider potential markets in addition to existing ones, and Koeltl had erred procedurally by putting the burden of proof for such harm on her rather than the Foundation.

"Most directly, AWF's licensing of the Prince Series works to Condé Nast without crediting or paying Goldsmith deprived her of royalty payments to which she would have otherwise been entitled", Lynch wrote, moving on to the market for derivative works, in which both parties participated. "Although we do not always consider lost royalties from the challenged use itself under the fourth factor (as any fair use necessarily involves the secondary user using the primary work without paying for the right to do so), we do consider them where the secondary use occurs within a traditional or reasonable market for the primary work."

The analysis also had to take into account what public benefit might result from the copying. The Foundation feared a chilling effect on art that involved similar copying, but Lynch dismissed those concerns: "Nothing in this opinion stifles the creation of art that may reasonably be perceived as conveying a new meaning or message, and embodying a new purpose, separate from its source material." He noted that Goldsmith had foregone some of the more extreme measures she could have sought as the holder of the infringed copyright, and that it was the Foundation's licensing of the Prince Series, not the actual work, she alleged to have been infringing. "Thus, art that is not turned into a commercial replica of its source material, and that otherwise occupies a separate primary market, has significantly more 'breathing space' than the commercial licensing of the Prince Series."

Finding all four factors favored Goldsmith, and noting that the Foundation had offered no "additional relevant considerations unique to this case that we should take into account", Lynch held for her that the Foundation was not entitled to fair use.

Amended decision after rehearing

Shortly after the decision was handed down, the Supreme Court decided Google v. Oracle, its first decision on fair use in years. The Foundation petitioned for rehearing, and the panel granted it to consider its effect on the case, which the Foundation argued called for a different result. But in an amended version of the ruling issued several months later that took Google into account, Lynch was unpersuaded. The Foundation, he said, "misinterpret[s] both opinions as adopting hard and fast categorical rules of fair use. To the contrary, both opinions recognize that determinations of fair use are highly contextual and fact specific, and are not easily reduced to rigid rules." The Court had also noted that since Google involved computer code, a primarily functional form of writing, its holding might not be so readily applicable to other areas of copyright law where artistic expression was at issue.

Lynch also dismissed the Foundation's claim that the earlier decision effectively outlawed an entire genre of art, likening the case to Googles dispute between two software makers.

Substantial similarity argument

Lastly, Lynch considered the Foundation's alternative argument that the district decision be affirmed on the grounds that the two works were not substantially similar. Normally in copyright lawsuits that question, when raised, was left to a jury, Lynch observed, but did not have to be in this case since opportunity to copy was not a hypothetical but instead a stipulated central fact of the case. And while it was often remanded to the trial court for consideration, it did not have to be, and in this case since fair use had already been asserted it did not have to be.

Lynch rejected the Foundation's argument for applying the "more discerning observer" test since that was reserved for media, mostly home decor, that typically contained a mix of copyrightable and non-copyrightable elements, which was not the issue with the photographs before the court. So he went with the "ordinary observer" test, distinguishing the Prince Series from precedents the Foundation cited by noting that those cases, resolved in the alleged infringer's favor, had involved images that replicated the original work, or had attempted to, rather than being directly derived from it as Warhol's had been. "This is not to say that every use of an exact reproduction constitutes a work that is substantially similar to the original", Lynch concluded. "But here, given the degree to which Goldsmith's work remains recognizable within Warhol's, there can be no reasonable debate that the works are substantially similar ... Prince, like other celebrity artists, was much photographed. But any reasonable viewer with access to a range of such photographs including the Goldsmith Photograph would have no difficulty identifying the latter as the source material for Warhol's Prince Series."

Jacobs concurrence

Judge Dennis Jacobs added a short concurrence "to make a single point": that the court's decision was limited to the Foundation's 2016 licensing and, although it had asked for a declaratory judgement that the Prince Series itself was non-infringing, Goldsmith had not challenged that so the courts could not rule. He reassured the owners of other works in the series, and indeed other works by Warhol and other modern artists that might similarly be challenged as derivative works that this decision did not affect them.

Supreme Court

The Foundation petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge the Second Circuit's ruling, which it called "a sea-change in the law of copyright" that would cast "a cloud of legal uncertainty over an entire genre of visual art."

Before the Court

AWF claimed that decision subverted the entire purpose of copyright law: to promote creative progress. It said the opinion's insistence that its "conclusion that those images are closer to what the law deems 'derivative' (and not 'transformative') does not imply that the Prince Series (or Warhol's art more broadly) is 'derivative', in the pejorative artistic sense, of Goldsmith's work or of anyone else's" was disingenuous and could create a chilling effect. Under the Second Circuit's logic, as claimed by the Foundation, an artist like Warhol would be chilled from creating a similar work today in fear of facing claims of infringement, which, under the Circuit's standard, would be upheld.

The Foundation sought to address the circuit split on the matter of transformative works under fair use provisions created by the Second Circuit, particularly with the Ninth Circuit where most fair use defense cases have been heard and which supported the district court's treatment of transformative works. The Foundation also identified the Supreme Court's decision in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (2021) related to transformative use as supporting the district court's position.

Goldsmith argued that the Second Circuit's decision was not as dire for copyright as the Foundation claimed, saying it took "a Chicken-Little approach to the decision below, but the sky is not remotely close to falling."

The Supreme Court granted certiorari for the case in March 2022, to be heard during the following term, deciding whether the Foundation's licensing of Orange Prince to Condé Nast infringed Goldsmith's copyright. The U.S. Copyright Office sided with Goldsmith in its amicus curiae brief, saying Warhol's works were not fair use, as they did not create new expressive meaning, and that a ruling in favor of Warhol would "dramatically expand copyists' ability to appropriate existing works".

Decision

The Court issued its ruling on May 18, 2023, considering only the question of whether the use Condé Nast made of the image licensed from the Foundation could be characterized as transformative in the commercial context, and letting all the Second Circuit's conclusions as to the other factors stand. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority, joined by all six of the other justices holding for Goldsmith. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Beyond its holding, the case drew comment for the unusually confrontational tone Sotomayor and Kagan's opinions took with each other. In one of her many footnotes directly criticizing the dissent, Sotomayor characterized it as "a series of misstatements and exaggerations, from [it]s very first sentence to its very last." Kagan took note of the majority's unusual focus on the dissent in a footnote of her own, questioning the need for "pages of commentary and fistfuls of comeback footnotes" if the majority found the dissent as irrational and baseless as it claimed to, and suggesting that its opinion might thus be "self-refuting".

Majority

Sotomayor's ruling, profusely illustrated not just with the images at issue but also other pictures of Prince by Goldsmith and others, as well as some of Warhol's work, largely reiterated the facts of the case and the underlying case law. She quoted Lynch's opinion frequently. At one point she put a smaller version of Warhol's image on Goldsmith's, rotated so it matched the angle on the original image, immediately adjacent, to demonstrate the essential similarity of the two.

"What role meaning or message played in the Second Circuit's analysis here is not entirely clear", Sotomayor observed. She agreed, nonetheless, with its conclusions that aesthetic or expressive changes do not by themselves make a work transgressive and that meaning or message can be considered in judging a work's purpose but are similarly not dispositive by themselves in that inquiry. Lynch's warning that judges should not be art critics in this department was partially right, Sotomayor wrote, in that a court should not evaluate the artistic significance of a work. "But 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 instance, because the use comments on, criticizes, or provides otherwise unavailable information about the original."

In conclusion, Sotomayor wrote:

Concurrence

"[T]he Court's decision seems to me to be exactly right", Gorsuch wrote. He reiterated Sotomayor's reminder that the only issue before the justices was the Foundation's licensing of the image to illustrate a magazine cover. "[U]nder the first fair-use factor the salient point is that the purpose and character of the Foundation's use involved competition with Ms. Goldsmith's image. To know that much is to know the first fair-use factor favors Ms. Goldsmith". He offered that if the AWF displayed the Prince series "in a nonprofit museum or a for-profit book commenting on 20th-century art, the purpose and character of that use might well point to fair use."

Dissent

Like Sotomayor, Kagan liberally illustrated her opinion with images of artwork. Not only did she reprint both Goldsmith's photograph and Orange Prince, she used other works by Warhol and, in the later sections, paintings by Diego Velázquez, Titian, Giorgione and Francis Bacon to make her points about the historic role of copying and transforming in art.

Kagan accused the majority of deciding the case on the basis of "a marketing decision: In the[ir] view, Warhol's licensing of the silkscreen to a magazine precludes fair use." By doing so they had wrongly mooted the question of what value, if any, Warhol's work had added to Goldsmith's. "Because the artist had such a commercial purpose, all the creativity in the world could not save him", she wrote. "That doctrinal shift ill serves copyright's core purpose."

Kagan questioned why the editors of Vanity Fair, and later at Condé Nast, would have chosen Warhol's work if it had indeed added nothing to Goldsmith's photo:

The majority, Kagan continued, had forgotten that "the more transformative the work, the less commercialism matters", as its decisions in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. and Google, both cases where the allegedly infringing work had been made for primarily and purely commercial purposes respectively, showed. Indeed, in the latter case the Court had even cited Warhol's work as an example of how transformative use benefited society. "[W]hat 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."

Kagan was especially critical of the majority's conclusion that the two works had the same "essential nature":

Lastly, Kagan said the majority had, by placing such value on the commercial use of Orange Prince, conflated the first factor with the fourth, market harm, when it held that the commercial use on the tribute magazine cover adversely affected Goldsmith's market for later use of the image. "Under the statute, courts are supposed to strike a balance between the two—and thus between rewarding original creators and enabling others to build on their works", she wrote. "That cannot happen when a court, à la the majority, double-counts the first goal and ignores the second."

The Court, she concluded, had so severely misinterpreted the relevant prior precedents as to chill transformative artistic expression with prior works and "will stifle creativity of every sort".

Reaction

Goldsmith, who had to mortgage her home in Nashville and set up a GoFundMe page to pay the $2 million in legal fees she incurred, said that although she had been "incredibly hopeful", she knew victory was not guaranteed. "[I]f you don't stand up for your rights, you lose them ... I still can't really breathe the sigh of relief that I would like to." Goldsmith was particularly disappointed by Kagan's dissent: "This would be a blow to artists? No."

Adam Gopnik wrote in The New Yorker that he found the combativeness between Sotomayor and Kagan refreshing. "We live in an era of such ideological solidarity, for reasons good and bad, among people who are perceived to be on the same 'side,' that any little peek of serious debate between them seems wholesome, not to mention welcome." He suggested the two might agree that "the quality we think of as added artfulness in a borrowed image is almost always much closer to parody than to piety." While Kagan's defense of transformation in art was admirable on its face, Gopnik found it:

Commentators focused on the art world expressed concern that appropriation art, exemplified by the Prince Series, could suffer as a result of the decision. "[It] took this already complex area of law and made it even more complicated", wrote NYU law professor Amy Adler in Art in America. "But one thing is clear: it is now far riskier for an artist to borrow from previous work ... Any artist who works with existing imagery should now reconsider her practice. Hire a lawyer, maybe try to negotiate a license and be ready to move on if you get turned away or can't afford the fee."

At Artnet, Marjorie Heins, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Arts Censorship Project, said the Court had held for Goldsmith out of "sympathy for Goldsmith, the working journalist, and a resentment of the Warhol Foundation, with its aura of art world glamor and privilege." The decision was "disastrously wrong", as under the distinction between commercial and non-commercial use it applied "artists, dealers, curators, collectors, and everyone else in the art world must make a case-by-case guess whether a creative work that started out as fair use will lose that defense under copyright law depending on how it's shown, sold, or marketed." Peter Karol in Artforum echoed those concerns, but ultimately interpreted the Court's goal as "a reenergized licensing market for source works used in follow-on art practices."

Adler later allowed to Gopnik's brother Blake, a Warhol biographer, writing for The New York Times, that Warhol was a "unicorn" in the art world due to the large market for licensing his works. As a result, the ruling was "irrelevant to most artists". She nevertheless saw problems if future creators in Goldsmith's situation sought to charge exorbitant sums for licensing.

Others Gopnik talked to criticized the scope of the decision. "If it's fair use, it should be fair use to do whatever you want with it", Eric Doeringer, another appropriation artist, told him. Virginia Rutledge, a former curator who became a lawyer and co-wrote a brief in Cariou, feared that artists like Doeringer might "slide down the fear hill" and limit themselves only to creating art from works they could license.

Another Artnet commentator, Ben Davis, said later that this apprehension missed the point. "I think the interesting question ... is this: Do we actually believe, when it comes to 'fair use,' in a 'celebrity-artist exception?'" The art world's "defensively maximalist" stance on appropriation had led to it giving too much credence to Kagan's dissent, he said.

Orange Prince and the series it came from are widely accepted as not among Warhol's best works, Davis wrote. "The Prince image is hack work. That is not an opinion of the '"I could paint that" school of art criticism'; it's a common critical take on the late Warhol". The artist, says Davis, was more preoccupied with funding his lifestyle and side projects like Interview magazine than further testing the limits of his art. "Kagan is appalled that the majority acts as if Warhol was just applying a Warhol 'Instagram filter'—but that's not too far from what he was doing in this case."

A decade earlier, Davis recalled, the art world had been less sympathetic when Los Angeles street artist Mr. Brainwash lost an infringement suit brought by British photographer Dennis Morris over the former's takes on a famous photo of Sid Vicious, takes that involved more alteration than Warhol's work made to Goldsmith. Sotomayor's emphasis on the use of the image seemed to Davis more useful than Kagan's expansive embrace of transformativeness, especially with the unknown effects artificial intelligence might turn out to have. "[I]t's not going to help the creative industries in navigating this perilous terrain if they remain completely attached to an automatic romanticization of Warhol-ian appropriation. It might actually be useful to think in a nuanced way about how the Warhol of 1964 is different than the Warhol of 1984 if we are going to find a way through the world of 2024."

See also
List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law
List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court

Notes

References

External links

United States copyright case law
United States Supreme Court cases
Prince (musician)
Andy Warhol
2023 in United States case law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
Fair use case law


This is a list of albums released by Walt Disney Records, including studio albums, soundtrack albums, compilation albums, and remix albums released by the label. Disney licensed its music to other labels from 1937 to 1956. The company started publishing its own music under Disneyland Records in 1956, eventually also adopting the Buena Vista label in 1959 for albums aimed at a slightly more adult audience and price-point (such as music from their live-action Westerns). Disneyland Records was renamed to Disneyland/Vista Records in 1971, Disneyland/Vista Records and Tapes in 1985, and its current branding, Walt Disney Records, in 1988.

Albums

1930s

1940s

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s

2000s

2010s

2020s

See also

 Hollywood Records discography
 Lists of albums

Notes

References

Discography
Disney
Film soundtracks
Disney

Walt Disney Records discography


Sokol-Eshelon () is a Soviet/Russian laser weapon–based anti-satellite system. It is an airborne laser based on a Beriev A-60 aircraft. In 2012 it was reported that the project is back under development and is intended for the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces and later the Russian Aerospace Forces once completed.

A-60

The Beriev A-60 aircraft is a laser research plane produced by Beriev based on their Il-76 transport. Development seems to have started in 1981 with the laser installed in 1983. A second plane was built in 1991. The plane contains a special nose cone with a laser targeting system.

Sokol-Eshelon
The Sokol Eshelon project started in 2003 and was first made public in the annual report of contractor Khimpromavtomatika in 2005. Other mentions include Almaz-Antey's annual report in 2006 and in a report by Radiofizika in 2009 where they mentioned their development of radar for the plane. Details also emerged due to a court case between Almaz-Antey and Beriev over payments to a subcontractor. The contract between the two parties was connected to a contract no. 5933 Almaz-Antey holds with military unit 21055. This contract is supervised by the Ministry of Defence's 27th Military Representative Office. The project seems to be known under the codename Duelyant ().

In 2009 the plane was involved in a test to illuminate Japanese satellite AJISAI which was at an orbital height of 1,500 km. The test involved seeing if a reflection of the laser off the satellite could be picked up, and was not intended to damage the satellite.

The laser has been given the codename 1LK222. The purpose of the laser is to blind the sensors of enemy satellites rather than destroy them.

See also
Related development:
 Beriev A-60
 Ilyushin Il-76

Comparable systems:
 Boeing NC-135
 Boeing YAL-1

References

2010s Russian military aircraft
Space weapons
Military lasers

Sokol Eshelon