#andy kagan

[warpedhound]

Some more Inglourious Dogs!

Andy Kagan - Silken Windhound

Gerold Hirschberg - American Staffordshire Terrier

Omar Ulmer - American English Coonhound

Smithson Utivich - Chinook

Hugo Stiglitz - Hanover Hound

[cyarikah]

Filling up a 25m/82ft long scroll… with Basterd brainrot.

[davidbrussat]

Can high court ban copying?

Photo by Lynn Goldsmith of Prince, left; art taken from it by Andy Warhol, right. (Business Insider) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the other day in a decision about art that could have a negative influence on classical architecture. The 7-2 decision in a case involving the art (I use the term out of politeness) of Andy Warhol, considered the age-old question of when copying earlier art is by…

[earlgreytea68]

Notes on the Andy Warhol Decision

Sometimes people ask me about big fair use decisions that come down, but nobody really asked me about this one, which made me wonder if everyone in fandom just collectively shrugged at it, which, I don't blame you, tbh.

I have to confess that I didn't read the decision when it came out because sometimes I just don't feel like it, but I have now read it and if anyone was curious about what it is, I figured I'd write up a little something.

Here's the deal: Lynn Goldsmith was a photographer, largely of icons of music, who took a photograph of Prince many years ago. Also many years ago, Vanity Fair wanted Andy Warhol to make an Andy Warhol print of Prince (really no other way to describe the print, it's just the Andy Warhol style). Andy Warhol wanted to start with a reference photo, so Vanity Fair contacted Goldsmith and licensed her photo of Prince for use. The terms of the license basically just said that Vanity Fair could only use the photo the one time.

Fast-forward to Prince dying and Vanity Fair runs ANOTHER Andy Warhol image of Prince based on the Goldsmith photo, because it turned out Andy Warhol made a bunch of prints based on the photo which Goldsmith didn't know about. Now the license didn't cover these other prints and uses, because by its terms it was very limited. So Goldsmith called up the Andy Warhol Foundation and was like, "Yo, the license didn't cover this, so you are infringing on my copyright in my photograph." (This is the effect of not being covered by a license.) And the Andy Warhol Foundation was basically like, "Nuh-uh," and they went to court and asked a court to say that they weren't infringing Goldsmith's copyright and Goldsmith is wrong SO THERE! (This is honestly basically what a declaratory judgment is ["You're wrong, SO THERE!"] and please use this definition if anyone ever asks you what a declaratory judgment is.)

Here is the photo at issue and the Andy Warhol print of it:

Okay, so I think you can see the issue in the case pretty clearly, right? Like, those two things look very like each other, I think everyone would agree.

Here's the problem with this case: I don't actually think it's really a fair use case and it annoys me that that's where we ended up. Because fair use is a DEFENSE to copyright infringement. What that means is that there has to be copyright infringement first. Copyright infringement means that the sued-upon work is substantially similar to the first work in something that is copyrightable (original to that creator). Fair use is only relevant once a court has decided you've created something substantially similar to something that someone else owns. Courts often just skip straight to fair use, though, which is a VERY ANNOYING HABIT because it muddies everything up, and the parties complicated it here in this case by only appealing one very narrow issue: Is the Andy Warhol print transformative? Which is one of the fair use factors.

Because that was the only issue before the Supreme Court, that's the only issue the Supreme Court decided (this is technically what the Supreme Court is supposed to do but like most things Supreme Court these days, one never knows what the Supreme Court might do). But it irritates me because I'm not sure this actually IS copyright infringement. I think it seems substantially similar, probably, but I'm not sure it's similar in anything that is COPYRIGHTABLE by Goldsmith, meaning anything that Goldsmith can own. By which I mean, maybe these two images are only similar because they both look like Prince, and nobody can own what Prince looks like (not even Prince). I think this is an interesting point for debate and I could see it coming out either way but we get zero discussion of this because it's not what the parties asked for analysis on. And that's annoying because there's a Kagan dissent in this case (Kagan disagreed with the majority opinion) that is basically all THIS DECISION WILL DESTROY ALL CREATIVITY, EVERYTHING WILL NOW BE COPYRIGHT INFRINGING, and I get where Kagan is coming from but that's only because this decision didn't actually get to decide copyright infringement. Like, it starts from this assumption that this is infringing unless fair use saves it, and then the majority doesn't let fair use save it, and so the dissent is like, THEREFORE EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE INFRINGING. But the analysis is in the wrong spot here! Anyway, I hope that makes sense, I'm a little in the weeds here.

The opinion of the Supreme Court was that the Andy Warhol print was not transformative, which is a big deal word in fair use law. Basically, if you are found to be transformative, you win your fair use case. And if you're not transformative, you don't always lose but you have a greater chance of losing. So a lot of the energy in a fair use case is around this transformativeness analysis (this is why AO3's parent org is called the Organization for Transformative Works).

What the Supreme Court basically says is that the first factor (which we have shortened to transformativeness) is "the purpose and character of the use." The Supreme Court says basically that there are two parts to this, as you can see: purpose and character. So it seems like Andy Warhol has changed up the original photograph and so maybe has a different message (art critics argued this vociferously) but the purpose of the Andy Warhol print in this context was the same as the purpose of the original photograph. In other words, this is not a case about this Andy Warhol print in a museum. This is a case about this Andy Warhol print being used by a magazine for the same purpose that the magazine would have licensed Goldsmith's original photo: to illustrate an article about Prince. This made all the difference to the Supreme Court.

A lot of the commentary about this case found this to be an outrageous conclusion for some reason. I'm not bothered by it, but I suspect that's because I come from fandom circles. To me, I am not confused by the idea that my fanfiction is transformative if non-commercial, but not transformative if its purpose shifts to be the same purpose as the original (to make money). I mean, I'm not entirely sure I agree that it would automatically be infringing if turned commercial, but I get why the different purpose makes a difference to my analysis of what's happening there. So I was a little bewildered by people who found it ridiculous to conclude that a use could be fair use for one purpose and not fair use for another purpose. I'm okay with that. I don't think it's destructive of fair use to say that, Idk. It's maybe a little destructive of commercial fair use, and that might grow to be problematic, but I don't think the opinion is attempting to be that broad. Although it could be broadly read. I just think the opinion is meant to say "don't forget that it's not just about the new message, it's also about the purpose that message is being used for, and those two things need to be balanced." At least, that's what I think it's saying. It's not just what the work is, but also how the work is being used.

One thing I have to say and that I have long thought is that copyright law and trademark law and many other types of law tie themselves into knots to protect Andy Warhol, and I feel like this is the first opinion I've read that...doesn't. But, look, this case would not be where it is today if the Andy Warhol print didn't so very obviously use the Goldsmith photo, and this case also would not be where it is today if the person using the photo hadn't been Andy Warhol. Like, I can't shake the idea that if any other average human had taken the Goldsmith photo, done that to it, and sold it to Vanity Fair, courts would have found this an easy infringement case, but because it was Andy Warhol it made courts uncomfortable to say that. The opinion that the Supreme Court affirmed (the Second Circuit opinion all of this) said basically that: We cannot have an Andy Warhol exception to copyright law. Andy Warhol could have used the photo for inspiration, for reference for what Prince looked like, to get ideas, and still come up with something that looked completely different (even if it still looked like Prince - there are a million photos of Prince that are all different even though they all look like Prince), and we wouldn't have a case here.

I just think about this case as compared to "Oh, the Places You'll Boldly Go," a case in which people took the Dr. Seuss book "Oh, the Places You'll Go" and remade it for Star Trek. They kept the basic message of the book (a problem for transformativeness analysis) but they changed all the artwork to be about Star Trek (although keeping the Dr. Seuss "style," as distinct as Andy Warhol's) and they also changed the words to be about Star Trek, while keeping the distinctive Dr. Seuss "style" there, too. You can have the book read to you here. Anyway, while agreeing that no one can own a particular "style," the appellate court in the case (the Ninth Circuit) was like, "This is not transformative, this is copyright infringement and not fair use." And I'm not saying that decision's wrong, but if something could be changed that much and not be considered to be fair use, to me it makes sense that the Andy Warhol print also wouldn't be fair use, Idk.

ANYWAY. These are my musings! Lots of people disagree about the outcome of this case and what it means! I think there wasn't a huge fan ripple reaction from it because I don't think it means much of anything in terms of fair use as applied to fandom. Again, I think it's a much bigger deal in the commercial fair use world, which frankly has always been a complicated mess. (Also it revives the parody/satire distinction, which is nonsensical, but no reason to get into that now lol.)

You can read the opinion for yourself, if you're interested, here.

[metabolizemotions]

(5/5) Cristina, Elena, Bailey, Carina, Roe v. Wade - the progression and regression of women's rights

Notes: in tags of that.

(forgot about spoiler feature. edited to shorten)

My favorite character on GA is Cristina. In some ways, she reminds me of Maya. 

I love what Shonda Rhimes said of her: 

"I leaned into Cristina, wrote her more eloquently, colored her more brightly, drew outside her lines. Let her do and think and live in ways that voiced my dreams. She did not want to get married. She had a genius that she chased. She loved her work. I gave her a strident desire to not have children because while I adore children, I wanted to watch her fight that feminist battle and win." 

I think Cristina won in a way that Elena Herrera wasn’t allowed to.  

Elena didn’t have the full agency of her own body and her own life to pursue her passion. I thought her SA gave another perspective as to why she left. I found it weird when it was first revealed that she was alive. But she was deeply traumatized and felt trapped and helpless. I don’t remember the specifics regarding Pruitt, but this storyline shows how not all women want to be mothers, but society tells them that it’s not a question of if but when. She didn’t want to be a mum but was somehow forced to be one if she didn’t want to be ostracized.  

Incidentally Bailey’s clinic is named Elena Bailey Memorial Clinic for Reproductive Health after her mum, whom she had a complicated relationship with, but fought hard for her opportunities and freedom. Like how Elena Herrera did whatever she could to teach Andy to protect herself. Andy later understood that her mum leaving might have been better than staying and being resentful and made everyone unhappy. But it did not mean Elena didn’t love her in her own way. 

Another coincidence is that Justice Elena Kagan was one of the three who voted to uphold Roe v. Wade: 

Justices Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor warned overturning Roe v. Wade would threaten other high court decisions in favor of gay rights and even potentially contraception.

The majority “eliminates a 50-year-old constitutional right that safeguards women’s freedom and equal station," according to their dissent. "It breaches a core rule-of-law principle, designed to promote constancy in the law. In doing all of that, it places in jeopardy other rights, from contraception to same-sex intimacy and marriage. And finally, it undermines the Court’s legitimacy.”

The clinic storyline is so important in today’s climate. Carina is such an important character with the intersection of her identities as an OB/GYN, a woman who wants to experience childbirth, and a married queer woman. Her rights to continue her passion as a doctor to help women, her rights with regards to her own body, her rights to be married to a woman are in constant jeopardy. 

That is why I am so mad about 5b, and whenever Carina's character is reduced to a hormonal woman, a sexy Italian, a wife, or a character used to serve the others' narratives. Sp*rmgate was a total insult of not just Carina but Maya, on their intelligence in their choices and their rights as a queer married couple - their marriage and their legal custody of their own child. All these written against backdrop of the real-life political climate was inexcusable.

[fictionkinfessions]

went back and rewatched my source again today. jeezuz, some of my boys were really just. kids. i was closest with omar, and i tended to tease him a lot, but like, hirschberg? sakowitz?? kagan??? shit, andy looks like a fuckin’ twelve year old with how lanky n awkward he is in the vet scene!

…alright, am i exaggerating because i was damn near thirty and his direct commanding officer so i felt kinda like his dad despite knowing it would bite me in the ass to get too attached, maybe (yes). but the point stands.

-donny donowitz (fictive)

[protoslacker]

But reading the Kagan/Sotomayor back-and-forth has hit home to me that it’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.

Ben Davis at art, law. 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

[mediamixs]

They Will Kill You:  a chilling horror experience 

The upcoming horror movie They Will Kill You marks the inaugural production from Nocturna, a horror label launched by Skydance and the filmmaking duo Andy and Barbara Muschietti. The film is set to star Zazie Beetz, known for her roles in "Joker" and "Deadpool 2, in the lead role. The story follows a woman who answers a help-wanted ad to become a housekeeper in a mysterious high-rise in New York City. Unbeknownst to her, she is entering a community that has experienced a series of unexplained disappearances. The film is written by Kirill Sokolov and Alex Litvak, with Sokolov set to direct. Sokolov is known for his dark sense of humor, which will likely add a unique tone to the movie.

The film is produced by David Ellison, Dana Goldberg, Don Granger, the Muschiettis, and Dan Kagan, along with Nocturna Co-Heads of Film Russell Ackerman and John Schoenfelder. Nocturna aims to produce high-quality, genre features for global audiences in both theatrical and streaming formats, with the goal of releasing two films per year. The Muschiettis, known for their work on the "It" franchise, have a first-look deal with Warner Bros. and are currently working on the HBO Max prequel series "Welcome to Derry." Andy Muschietti is also set to direct "Batman: Brave and the Bold".Zazie Beetz is represented by Entertainment 360, WME, and Sloan Offer Weber Dern. The film is expected to be a chilling horror experience that will keep audiences on the edge of their seats.

According to the search results, the Muschiettis want to focus on producing high-quality, genre features for global audiences with Nocturna, their new horror label in partnership with Skydance. Specifically, the Muschiettis stated that "under this label, we are excited to deliver the full range of emotions that our movies pack: Heart, humor and horror". This suggests they aim to create horror films that blend different tones and emotions, rather than just pure scares. The first project from Nocturna, "They Will Kill You," is described as a horror feature "laced with the black humor that is [director Kirill] Sokolov's trademark". This indicates the Muschiettis want to explore horror with a unique, darkly comedic sensibility. Additionally, Nocturna is aiming to produce two films per year, with the goal of delivering "unique and entertaining horror experiences that will live in the audiences' nightmares for years". This focus on high-quality, globally appealing horror content marks a strategic expansion for Skydance into the genre.

[msclaritea]

Justice Kagan Accuses Justice Sotomayor of Hypocrisy in Warhol Decision

In pointed dissent, Justice Kagan accuses fellow liberal Justice Sotomayor of hypocrisy in Warhol decision, says the court is 'trying too hard' and anti-artist ruling will 'stifle creativity' and 'make our world poorer'

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert 

May 21, 2023, 12:56

U.S. Supreme Court, Associate Justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor on stage during a Women's History Month. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled on a case regarding copyright law featuring art by Andy Warhol.

In her dissent against the 7-2 majority, Justice Kagan accused her colleagues of hypocrisy.

Kagan said Sotomayor's ruling, written for the majority, will "thwart the expression of new ideas."

In her scathing dissent of the Supreme Court's Thursday ruling against artists in a copyright case featuring a Prince portrait by Andy Warhol, Justice Elena Kagan took aim at her colleagues, accusing them of hypocrisy and stifling creativity, all while quoting the beloved Julie Andrews film "The Sound of Music."

The Court ruled 7-2 against the Andy Warhol Foundation in the high-profile case, determining that the iconic artist had infringed on Lynn Goldsmith's copyright of her portrait of Prince by creating an orange silk screen print of the photo. Warhol's print was later licensed to the media giant Condé Nast for $10,000 and was used on the cover of a magazine, and the print's commercial use was the basis of the copyright claim.

Warhol Foundation lawyers, and the dissenting justices, Kagan and Chief Justice John Roberts, argued the artist's interpretation of the photograph altered the original enough to be considered "fair use," and not subject to copyright claims. The majority, in an opinion written by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, disagreed.

"The use of a copyrighted work may nevertheless be fair if, among other things, the use has a purpose and character that is sufficiently distinct from the original," Sotomayor wrote in her opinion for the majority. "In this case, however, Goldsmith's original photograph of Prince, and AWF's copying use of that photograph in an image licensed to a special edition magazine devoted to Prince, share substantially the same purpose, and the use is of a commercial nature."

Representatives for the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

"Lynn Goldsmith's photograph of Prince; Andy Warhol's silkscreen print of Prince, featured on the cover of a Condé Nast magazine. Supreme Court documents

Kagan, with Roberts concurring, took issue with the majority's characterization that the Warhol print was not substantially different than Goldsmith's photograph, pointing to the social commentary ascribed to Warhol's works and the labor-intensive process of screen printing as defining factors of the work. 

"There is precious little evidence in today's opinion that the majority has actually looked at these images, much less that it has engaged with expert views of their aesthetics and meaning," Kagan wrote.

Anyone, Kagan said the majority suggested, could have cropped, flattened, traced, and colored the photo as the iconic artist Warhol did. Instead, she argued, Warhol did as artists do, and built upon existing materials to create their own, new works."

Kagan is nuts for this and the fact that Roberts agreed with her, cements the fact. That's the only photo of Prince styled that way, the actual photo was then silkscreened and used to sell a magazine.

[qudachuk]

Justice Elena Kagan argued the ruling would ‘stifle creativity of every sort’

[mimelord1]

Justice Clarence Thomas Says He Was a Prince Fan But Only in the 80s

Justice Clarence Thomas Says He Was a Prince Fan, But Only in the ’80s https://ift.tt/ZaeCpLs Prince and Andy Warhol are hot topics at the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that has Justice Clarence Thomas making a Bill Clinton-esque confession!! Yeah, it’s that kinda day. Justice Thomas spoke out Wednesday during oral arguments for a case involving a Prince image Warhol created back in 1984. Thomas, who rarely ever speaks during SCOTUS arguments, said, “Let’s say I was a Prince fan, which I was in the ’80s.” Play video content The comment drew light laughter, and then Justice Elena Kagan added a punchline … “No longer?” The whole court erupted in laughter at that point and Thomas replied, “Only on Thursday nights.” Okay, first of all — Clarence Thomas … Mr. conservative, Mr. overturn Roe v. Wade and gay marriage likes Prince??!! More accurately, he specified he WAS a Prince fan, seemingly disavowing any love of the Purple One since 1990. Sorta like Clinton admitting he tried weed back in the day, but immediately insisting he didn’t inhale. Secondly, what the hell’s going on in the Thomas residence on Thursday nights? Ewww The post Justice Clarence Thomas Says He Was a Prince Fan, But Only in the ’80s first appeared on Suave Media. Tags and categories: Uncategorized via WordPress https://ift.tt/lfOJNd9 October 12, 2022 at 05:33PM

[war-obsessed]

Blame - Chapter Zero; The mistake

"You're such an asshole Fredrick!" He loved it when she said his name like that. The way his name rolled off of her tongue, the way her French accent complimented the tones of his name, the french i, the way she swore. Everything about her was graceful, like a real French mademoiselle. 

"Colette!" His harsh voice called for her, harsh with that German accent of his that she so adored. She turned towards him, and opened her mouth to say something. Hesitation. Her mouth shut, as she thought for a few seconds, and opened it again. "I'm sorry Fredrick. If only you saw." A silence rested between the two. The silent was so known, homelike, so trusted, but meanwhile so hostile, angry and anxious. "Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to get totally wasted. And if you do mind, I literally do not care. Adieu Monsoir Fredrick!" She cheerfully waved at him, as she elegantly stomped out of the room. Only she could stomp elegantly, and he knew it.

"I really fucked up, didn't I?"

God, why did she, a French fucking citizen, working with the fucking Americans, have to fall in love with Fredrick Fucking Zoller.

To be continued? Is there interest for this?

Edit: There was, and I present to you; Chapter One; How it all begun | Chapter Two; Coffee

[theprettiestlamb]

UPDATE: Chapters 7 and 8 have been posted!

[thecomicsnexus]

[kaleidoscope-galleries]

Shadow Art by Larry Kagan - Montclair Art Museum, Montclair, NJ

[billsfangearring]

What we're in for with the next SCOTUS term

Some years ago, I remarked that “[w]e’re all textualists now.” It seems I was wrong. The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the “major questions doctrine” magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards. — Elena Kagan, dissenting on West Virginia v. EPA (2022)

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court's radical right wing can run roughshod over the country, here's some of what's on the docket for the term starting in October:

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis: a case about whether anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBTQ equality violate the free speech and free exercise of religion clauses of the First Amendment; may exempt certain businesses from those laws because of the owner’s religious beliefs.

Haaland v. Brackeen: a case that may invalidate portions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, which (among other things) establishes minimum standards for the removal of Native American children from their families and a preference that Native children who are removed from their families be placed with extended family members or in Native foster homes.

Merrill v. Milligan: a case about a racially discriminatory congressional map that dilutes Black votes; may further dismantle the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Moore v. Harper: another case about a congressional map that has the potential to upend over 200 years of election law by eliminating almost all oversight of federal elections by state courts.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College: two cases about diversity-based affirmative action programs that may ban colleges and universities from using race as a factor in admissions.

P.S. For my fandom friends, here's one other case that's less important for our democracy but is relevant for fandom:

Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith: a case about what it means for a work of art to be “transformative” for purposes of fair use under the Copyright Act.