![]() Breyer similarly thought to discuss the related question of how the fair-use defense to copyright claims might apply to Warhol’s images of Campbell’s soup cans and similar works - an issue not remotely before the court. Last year, in a case about computer code, Justice Stephen G. ![]() “Through distortion and the careful manipulation of context,” Justice Mosk explained, “Warhol was able to convey a message that went beyond the commercial exploitation of celebrity images and became a form of ironic social comment on the dehumanization of celebrity itself.” His silk-screened images of Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor and Elvis Presley, the justice wrote, “may well be entitled to First Amendment protection.” In an odd aside, Justice Stanley Mosk, writing for the court, paused to say that the case might have come out differently had Warhol been the defendant. In 2001, for instance, the California Supreme Court ruled that an artist named Gary Saderup could not sell charcoal drawings of the Three Stooges without their heirs’ permission, saying the images violated a state law on the commercial use of celebrities’ likenesses. Warhol, courts have said, is a special case. This fall, the justices will confront an issue that has long vexed the courts: what to make of Andy Warhol’s art. ![]() WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court, which has not been shy about claiming expertise in all sorts of areas, will soon turn to art criticism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |