Andy Warhol and ‘Fair Use’ in Art

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/opinion/letters/andy-warhol-fair-use.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

In “The Supreme Court Is Wrong About Andy Warhol” (Opinion guest essay, June 10), Richard Meyer gets to the truth about the artist in the last sentence: “His art, like all good art, was not created to abide by the law.”

But we all live under law, including copyright law. According to Professor Meyer, “Had [Warhol] known about fair use, the artist likely would have been little concerned with legal repercussions.” Well, Warhol and his lawyers most likely knew the elements of the “fair use” defense because while they were not codified until 1976, those principles date back to Judge Joseph Story’s historic 1841 opinion in Folsom v. Marsh.

Warhol may be a “towering figure in modern art,” as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent last month in Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, but the court, in a 7-to-2 opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, fairly concluded that the work of the photographer Lynn Goldsmith was entitled to copyright protection “even against famous artists.”

Keith DanishLeonia, N.J.The writer is a retired attorney who specialized in intellectual property law.

To the Editor:

What Richard Meyer, the Supreme Court and most of the opinion pieces on its decision have completely missed about Vanity Fair’s using a second Andy Warhol painting of Prince is that the case had virtually nothing to do with “fair use” and other theories about Warhol’s art.

Warhol had gotten the photographic source material for his painting only because Vanity Fair had paid the photographer Lynn Goldsmith a $400 fee for a single use.

The fact that Warhol made numerous variations — as he often did — was not covered by the single-use provision. The real issue wasn’t about “fair use,” but breach of contract. I’m sure hundreds of thousands of dollars that should have gone to needy artists were wasted on lawyers.

Roger L. SchlaiferAmelia Island, Fla.The writer was the exclusive worldwide licenser for the Andy Warhol Estate and Foundation for four years after Warhol died in 1987.

To the Editor:

Richard Meyer defends Andy Warhol’s right to “transform” the works of others. For my play “The Slave Who Loved Caviar,” about the relationship between Warhol and the artist Jean-Michel Basquiat, I transformed one of Warhol’s photographs. The Warhol Foundation made me stop using it.

Ishmael ReedOakland, Calif.

To the Editor:

Re “Don’t Automatically Write Off the Judge in the Trump Documents Case,” by Nick Akerman (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, June 15):

There’s a larger problem created by Judge Aileen Cannon’s continued membership in the Federalist Society. Judges should not be members of factional organizations that create the perception or reality of partiality. In my opinion — and that of many legal ethicists and academics — the Federalist Society is one such group.

Funded by prominent Republican donors and pivotal to the vetting of conservative judges, the Federalist Society seeks to influence the composition and jurisprudence of federal courts. The Trump administration essentially outsourced judicial selection to the Federalist Society, whose top leaders were in close contact with prominent administration officials.

Requiring Judge Cannon to formally distance herself from this Trump-linked group before presiding over the prosecution of Donald Trump is a basic step that would help restore public trust in her independence. And Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch should do the same, especially as confidence in the Supreme Court sinks to record lows.

Duncan HosieBrooklynThe writer is an appellate lawyer who has written about the Supreme Court and the conservative legal movement.

To the Editor:

Re “A Pack-Rat President Prized His Boxes of Papers” (front page, June 16):

What was Donald Trump’s motive for swiping top-secret documents as he left the White House? Your story seems to credit the speculation that it was just Mr. Trump’s character as a pack rat.

But there’s another possibility, one that would have been the starting point if anyone else had stolen something of value: He intended to realize that value.

Letters from Kim Jong-un could bring a nontrivial sum from a collector. For nuclear secrets, the bidder might be Russian or Chinese intelligence.

If we’re going to speculate on Mr. Trump’s motivation, there’s no reason to exclude the most disturbing possibilities. Not when it’s the man who sees America’s values only as potential chits in the art of the self-serving deal.

Mitchell ZimmermanPalo Alto, Calif.

To the Editor:

Re “The New War on Bad Air” (Science Times, June 20):

Our buildings should be seen as public health tools, but we do not need to wait for the new standard of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Developed in the 1990s, Passive House represents the leading standard for the design and construction of buildings that provide fresh air while managing air pollutants and energy demand.

A Passive House building envelope is highly insulated and airtight, reducing heating and cooling requirements by up to 90 percent. The envelope is crafted based on the local climate to prevent mold, a major contributor to poor indoor air quality.

A ventilation system equipped with high performance filters ensures a continuous fresh air supply, often exceeding the standards for airborne pathogens proposed by ASHRAE. Occupants can open windows for natural ventilation, but when outdoor air quality is unhealthy they can rely on the building’s systems.

The standard is gaining traction in the United States. Sendero Verde, a Passive House affordable multifamily complex, is located in East Harlem. Beginning in January 2024, all large multifamily residential buildings in Boston must adhere to Passive House requirements.

With the combined public health emergencies of Covid-19 and wildfire smoke, we should demand Passive House construction for a more resilient future.

Bunny TuckerDenverThe writer is a licensed architect and certified Passive House designer.

To the Editor:

Re “Americans’ Median Age Reached a Record High” (news article, June 23):

The rapid demographic shift underscores a systemic need and opportunity to change the way we care for one another as we age.

The overwhelming majority of people in the U.S. want to age in their homes, but our country doesn’t have the infrastructure that allows people to do so. This is especially true for L.G.B.T.Q. people who are less likely to have children or live with biological family, and instead depend on family of choice or direct care workers for support.

Congress should expand on President Biden’s historic executive order and invest in family caregiver support by expanding paid family medical leave, ensuring access to home- and community-based long-term care, and improving the working conditions and wages for the work force that provides that care.

Nicole JorwicArlington, Va.