New York
Court sides with photographer over Warhol art
NEW YORK (AP) — A U.S. appeals court sided with a photographer Friday in her copyright dispute over how a foundation has marketed a series of Andy Warhol works of art based on her pictures of Prince.
The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the artwork created by the Warhol before his 1987 death was not transformative and could not overcome obligations to photographer Lynn Goldsmith’s copyright protections. It returned the case to a lower court for further proceedings.
Warhol created a series of 16 artworks based on a 1981 picture of Prince that was taken by Goldsmith, a pioneering photographer known for portraits of famous musicians. The series contained 12 silkscreen paintings, two screen prints on paper and two drawings.
“Crucially, the Prince Series retains the essential elements of the Goldsmith Photograph without significantly adding to or altering those elements,” the 2nd Circuit said in a decision written by Judge Gerard E. Lynch.
The decision overturned a 2019 ruling by a Manhattan judge who concluded that Warhol’s renderings were so different from Goldsmith’s photograph that they transcended Goldsmith’s copyrights.
U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl in Manhattan had concluded that Warhol transformed a picture of a vulnerable and uncomfortable Prince into an artwork that made the singer an “iconic, larger-than-life figure.”
In 1984, Vanity Fair licensed one of Goldsmith’s black-and-white studio portraits of Prince from her December 1981 shoot for $400 and commissioned Warhol to create an illustration of Prince for an article titled “Purple Fame.”
The dispute emerged after Prince’s 2016 death, when the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts licensed the use of Warhol’s Prince series for use in a magazine commemorating Prince’s life. One of Warhol’s creations was on the cover of the May 2016 magazine.
Goldsmith claimed that the publication of the Warhol artwork destroyed a high-profile licensing opportunity.
Attorney Luke Nikas said the Warhol Foundation will challenge the ruling.
“Over fifty years of established art history and popular consensus confirms that Andy Warhol is one of the most transformative artists of the 20th Century,” Nikas said in a statement. “While the Warhol Foundation strongly disagrees with the Second Circuit’s ruling, it does not change this fact, nor does it change the impact of Andy Warhol’s work on history.”
Attorney Barry Werbin said Goldsmith, his client, was “beyond happy and very grateful to everyone who helped get to this day.”
“Apart from being ecstatic as to the result, in my view it’s a long overdue reeling in of what had become an overly-expansive application of copyright ‘transformative’ fair use,” Werbin said in an email.
“The decision helps vindicate the rights of photographers who risk having their works misappropriated for commercial use by famous artists under the guise of fair use,” he added.
The three-judge 2nd Circuit panel said it hoped its ruling would bring more clarity to copyright law. It repeatedly compared the copyright issues to what occurs when books are made into movies. The movie, it noted, is often quite different from the book but yet retains copyright obligations.
The appeals court also said the unique nature of Warhol’s art should have no bearing on whether the artwork is sufficiently transformative to be deemed “fair use” of a copyright, a legal term that would free an artist from paying licensing fees for the raw material it was based on.
“We feel compelled to clarify that it is entirely irrelevant to this analysis that “each Prince Series work is immediately recognizable as a ‘Warhol,’” the appeals court said. “Entertaining that logic would inevitably create a celebrity-plagiarist privilege; the more established the artist and the more distinct that artist’s style, the greater leeway that artist would have to pilfer the creative labors of others.”
New Jersey
Parents must be told of cannabis offense under new state law
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey parents must be notified if their minor child is caught buying or possessing marijuana under a bill Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law Friday.
Murphy, a Democrat, signed the legislation a day after the Democrat-led Legislature passed what lawmakers called a “cleanup” bill to correct last month’s law setting up the new recreational marijuana marketplace. It inexplicably and explicitly barred police from telling parents whether their children were unlawfully found in possession of marijuana.
Lawmakers moved the bill after what they said was an onslaught from constituents protesting the prohibition against parental notification.
Murphy didn’t offer any statement or explanation for why the change was necessary, nor did the bill’s sponsors explain how the prohibition came to be included in the February law.
Republicans needled the Democratic majority for “coming to our senses” and passing the new legislation.
Even though there was no opposition to the cleanup bill, it still didn’t go far enough in fixing the recreational marijuana legislation for some.
That’s because the February law continues to hold that officers could be guilty of depriving someone of their civil rights if law enforcement questions a minor stemming from the discovery of marijuana, alcohol or hashish.
“The potential for criminal liability in any interaction will prevent officers from intervening in situations where underage criminal activity occurs, allowing underage marijuana and alcohol use to run rampant in our schools, in our parks and on our beaches,” said the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police in a statement on Thursday.
Under the law Murphy signed in February, a first offense would have resulted in a written warning. The law made it clear that the person’s parent or guardian was not to be notified. A second offense was a written warning along with information on drug treatment services.
Police were to provide a copy of the second warning to those younger than 18, along with a notice about the first offense, as well. The third offense carried a written warning again, along with a referral to drug treatment services. Parents and guardians would have been notified with a third offense.
The new law changes that so parents will be notified after a first offense.
Voters approved of recreational marijuana for those 21 and older by 2 to 1 in a ballot measure in November. It took more than three months for lawmakers and the governor to agree on legislation setting up the recreational marketplace.
Lawmakers acknowledged at the time that they might have to revisit the newly signed law with cleanup legislation.
The law also applies to cases in which a minor in found to be in possession of alcohol.
New Mexico
State high court affirms man’s extended commitment
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — The New Mexico Supreme Court has upheld a district court decision to extend the criminal commitment of a Las Vegas, New Mexico man placed in a mental institution after he was accused of killing his roommate in 2003.
Psychiatrists have told different judges over the years that Ricky Quintana, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia, could not stand trial because of his mental illness, The Santa Fe New Mexican reported Thursday. He was instead committed to the state Behavioral Health Institute.
A district judge ruled in 2017 that Quintana still presented a danger to the community and extended his commitment for another five years.
The Supreme Court on Thursday affirmed the decision, ruling that defendants found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial and dangerous can be ordered to spend additional time in mental institutions.
Prosecutors accuse Quintana of killing and mutilating his roommate Michael Grube, who was 47. The district court extended his commitment after concerns Quintana would not take his medication and his psychosis might return.
Officials said defendants who are committed to mental institutions must be reviewed every two years for competency and for how dangerous they are.
Under the New Mexico Mental Illness and Competency Code, there is no maximum sentence for people who are committed.
But defendants can receive the maximum sentence they would have received in their criminal case if they had been mentally competent to stand trial.
Illinois
Man fined $250 for accident that killed bicyclist
URBANA, Ill. (AP) — A central Illinois man has been convicted of a traffic offense and fined $250 in connection with a highway collision last summer that killed a young bicyclist.
Champaign County Judge Ronda Holliman found Shawn H. Allen, 53, of St. Joseph guilty Thursday of failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident that led to the death of Matthew Correll, 18, of Gifford.
Allen was driving along U.S. 136 in Gifford on Aug. 18 when he approached two bicyclists who were also headed in that direction, The (Champaign) News-Gazette reported.
Allen hit the rear wheel of Matthew Correll’s bicycle, causing him to be vaulted 161 feet (49 meters) from the point of impact. He died at the scene. Allen also sideswiped the bicycle of Correll’s 16-year-old brother, Micah, who was hospitalized with injuries.
Assistant State’s Attorney Lauren McQueen said the youth continues to receive therapy for a leg injury and counseling for the accident.
McQueen said Allen told state police he did not see the brothers until he was too close to avoid hitting them, and said that, “it’s unfortunately a tragic accident.”
McQueen recommended the minimal $25 fine for Allen, but Holliman imposed a $250 fine and gave Allen three months to pay that as well as the other court costs.
Matthew Correll’s parents have filed a pending civil lawsuit against Allen.
Pennsylvania
Former top broker gets over 17 years for scamming clients
SCRANTON, Pa. (AP) — A former Pennsylvania financial adviser who earned millions by pushing high-risk, high-fee investments on unsuspecting retirees was sentenced Friday to more than 17 years in federal prison.
A judge said Anthony Diaz took advantage of dozens of clients, some of whom lost their life savings or were unable to send their children to college as a result of the fraud.
Diaz, who has been living in Florida, was handcuffed in the courtroom and led away to immediately begin serving his sentence.
The federal prosecution was highly unusual in that Diaz did not steal people’s nest eggs. Rather, jurors were told, Diaz had unsuspecting customers sign blank documents, then falsified their net worth, income, investment experience and risk tolerance to make it appear they met the suitability requirements of the products.
Former customers testified that Diaz guaranteed them high returns while failing to explain they could lose their money or that it would be tied up for years.
Testifying in his own defense, Diaz acknowledged paperwork errors but denied criminal intent. He said the investments he sold were vetted and approved by the brokerages he worked with, and insisted he fully explained the risks to his clients.
U.S. District Judge Malachy Mannion called Diaz an unrepentant con man who had brazenly “lied through his teeth” to the jury that convicted him, then repeated the lies in his statement to the court Friday.
The 11 clients whom Diaz was charged with defrauding lost as much as $3.5 million, according to court documents, but Mannion said he had received victim impact statements from 30 people.
The case illustrated how problem brokers can bounce from firm to firm despite racking up consumer complaints and rules infractions. Diaz affiliated with 11 investment firms in 15 years, getting booted from five of them and resigning from another.
