Talk:Orange Prince (1984)
Latest comment: 11 months ago by Woodpainter in topic Copyright case
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Copyright case edit
No info about the Goldsmith copyright case? --2001:FB1:3B:D0FB:60C1:15D:C108:F8FD (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
It is there now, after the appellate court decision Mastimido (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The decision of the Supreme Court MUST be included. The reaction within the artistic community has been vocal and hostile to the Court decision and extremely supportive of the dissent by Justice Kagan joined by Chief Justice Roberts. --Will (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- However, other legal scholars have pointed out how narrow the decision is, only because the one print was used commercially; Gorsuch said that if the print were only displayed in museums, fair use would have favored the foundation. Masem (t) 02:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Gorsuch played a clever hand, transferring the question from appropriation for expressive purpose to a question of "use where," admitting that used elsewhere the appropriation might have been acceptable. Kagan's argument sought to force the court to see use of the appropriation in the context of a cultural, critical, art historical "moment," as it were. Messy. And important. Right now let me say simply that omission of any mention of the Kegan (Roberts) dissent detracts from the fullness of treatment of the case, the arguments and the divided decision. Will (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- We have a full article dedicated to the decision (which covers Gorsuch's and Kagan's opinions too); what gets in here should summarize 1) what happens now with the Foundation (assuming that appeals affirms now) and 2) input from copyright and legal experts that frame the decision to the larger world (which is a split set of opinions in how narrow or broad this may be). Masem (t) 04:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Gorsuch played a clever hand, transferring the question from appropriation for expressive purpose to a question of "use where," admitting that used elsewhere the appropriation might have been acceptable. Kagan's argument sought to force the court to see use of the appropriation in the context of a cultural, critical, art historical "moment," as it were. Messy. And important. Right now let me say simply that omission of any mention of the Kegan (Roberts) dissent detracts from the fullness of treatment of the case, the arguments and the divided decision. Will (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Fair Use edit
Shouldn't the Fair Use section at least mention the lawsuit? Of the universe (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)