Andy Warhol violated a photographer’s copyright when he used her picture of Prince as the basis for 13 silkscreen portraits nearly 40 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled.

A New York federal judge ruled Monday that Andy Warhol’s series of paintings do not infringe the copyright of the photographer whose image inspired the painting.The decision puts an end to an ...

In 2019, a New York federal judge sided with Warhol that the Prince series qualifies as a new and distinct piece of art by incorporating a new meaning and message. But a federal appeals court in ...

Warhol died in 1987, and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts assumed ownership of his work. When Prince died in 2016 , Vanity Fair’s parent company, Condé Nast, published a special ...

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a photographer who claimed the late Andy Warhol should have honored her copyright on a photo of the rock star Prince when creating an iconic artistic image ...

The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it would hear a closely-watched copyright case over a series of images of Prince created by Andy Warhol.

Opinion Why Andy Warhol’s ‘Prince’ Is Actually Bad, and the Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith Decision Is Actually Good. We need to reboot the arguments we make about appropriation art.

The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts in April 2017 sued photographer Lynn Goldsmith and asked the court for a declaration that his 1984 paintings of Prince don’t violate her copyright ...

Andy Warhol’s Prince Paintings Didn’t Rip Off Photographer, ... “Andy Warhol is one of the most important artists of the 20th century,” said Luke Nikas of the law firm Quinn Emanuel, ...

In a copyright battle with major implications, the justices heard arguments in a dispute over whether the artist's alterations to a photograph of Prince should be considered a new work.