Art British

[Kelly Crow @KellyCrowWSJ]

A decade ago the going rate for a Warhol ‘Prince’ was around $25,000. After the Supreme Court’s ruling, insiders think they could top $1 million. https://t.co/eTxWRIpw21

[Art British @artbritish]

@Variety I think @Variety misstates the holding. Andy Warhol didn't violate anything. He created the paintings pursuant to a limited license Vanity Fair paid for from Goldsmith in 1984. The SCOTUS decision relates to AWF licensing of the photo in 2016 without crediting Goldsmith.

[Art British @artbritish]

@nytimes I think @nytimes misstates the holding. Andy Warhol didn't violate anything. He created the paintings pursuant to a limited license Vanity Fair paid for from Goldsmith in 1984. The SCOTUS decision relates to AWF licensing of the photo in 2016 without crediting Goldsmith.

[Art British @artbritish]

@sabagnic @k_ristuben @nytimes @adamliptak Yes, I think @nytimes misstates the holding. Andy Warhol didn't violate anything. He created the paintings pursuant to a limited license Vanity Fair paid for from Goldsmith in 1984. The SCOTUS decision relates to AWF licensing of the photo in 2016 without crediting Goldsmith.

[Art British @artbritish]

@GWRHelp Michaela, we were just told that the train going to London Paddington from St Erth was supposed to stop here but didn’t. We have been in St Erth waiting for over 2 hours now and no trains to London. What are we supposed to do?

[Art British @artbritish]

@GWRHelp Any updates? Still waiting at St Erth for train to Paddington. Been here for 2 hours. What are our options?

[New York Times Arts @nytimesarts]

In the Renaissance, a series of appropriations completely transformed the function of European paintings and sculptures, turning them into the kinds of museum-worthy objects we contemplate today. https://t.co/8izI31EOD5

[Art British @artbritish]

@DC_Bar @GWtweets Prof Garcia’s take is a considered one, but the facts as presented re. the original licensing agreement are not correct. Both the US Gov’t brief and Goldsmith in her latest submission imply all 16 Prince Series works could in theory have been produced under the original license

[Art British @artbritish]

@BobLoeb @BLaw @melbostwick @KimberlyRobinsn @Orrick Even the US Govt amicus brief raised this possibility by suggesting that Warhol may have created the Prince series "as part of his artistic process for creating the licensed 1984 Vanity Fair illustrations”. Again as pointed out by Volokh

[Art British @artbritish]

@BobLoeb @BLaw @melbostwick @KimberlyRobinsn @Orrick “If the sixteen prints were authorized derivative works, then Warhol (and the Foundation after his demise) would own copyrights in this series of works, as they are certainly original enough to satisfy copyright's modest standards.” https://t.co/8TBxTtArqt

[Art British @artbritish]

@BobLoeb @BLaw @melbostwick @KimberlyRobinsn @Orrick SCOTUS cannot look beyond the fact that the 16 derivative artworks by Warhol were created under Goldsmith’s license, ie with the express permission of her company in 1984. This fact has not been given enough weight in this and many of the amicus briefs.

[Art British @artbritish]

@gesmer @LinkedIn The analysis of the Justices is interesting. One thing, you say the Prince Series was ‘unauthorised’, yet the artworks were created under license with Vanity Fair as an ‘artist’s reference’ of the Goldsmith photo in 1984.

[Dr. Bendor Grosvenor 🇺🇦 @arthistorynews]

I'd love to see this. Suspect the vineyard will flourish too, in our newly Roman climate.

[Auctionradar @Auctionradar]

Sleeper of the day or of the summer i let you choose 💫
Estimated 50 GBP as 19th century, this holy family fetched 160 000 GBP
#oldmasters #sleeper

[Artnet @artnet]

"I think a lot of people misjudged me."

Tracey Emin opens up about aging, love, and the art scenes that shut her out: https://t.co/IMJZf9dpg5

[Art British @artbritish]

@CmteForJustice @Goldsmithphoto @reeveslawstl Goldsmith has rolled back her original claim that the artworks themselves are infringing. The US Govt brief also holds, “Here, creation of the Prince Series is not at issue…it is not clear that the creation infringed Goldsmith’s copyright at all”

[Art British @artbritish]

@CmteForJustice @Goldsmithphoto @reeveslawstl The original Warhol artworks of Prince were created under license from Lynn Goldsmith in 1984, hence do not infringe her copyright of the photo.

[Art British @artbritish]

@Guy_A_Rub @ip_scholar And continues: “Warhol may have created the other Prince Series images for his own edification or as part of his artistic process for creating the licensed 1984 Vanity Fair illustration.”

[Art British @artbritish]

@Guy_A_Rub @ip_scholar I agree. Goldsmith has rolled back her original claim that the artworks themselves are infringing. The US Govt brief also states, “Here, creation of the Prince Series is not at issue…it is not clear that the creation infringed Goldsmith’s copyright at all”

[Art British @artbritish]

@Law360 The US Govt also weighed in on the Google vs Oracle case but SCOTUS ignored their arguments