Cariou v. Prince
2013 copyright case in the United States / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Cariou v. Prince?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013)[1] is a copyright case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on the question of whether artist Richard Prince's appropriation art treatment of Patrick Cariou's photographs was copyright infringement or fair use.[2] The Second Circuit held in 2013 that Prince's appropriation art could constitute fair use, and that a number of his works were transformative fair uses of Cariou's photographs.[3] The Court remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for reconsideration of five of Prince's works. The Supreme Court denied Cariou's petition for a writ of certiorari, and the case settled in 2014.[3]
Cariou v. Prince | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Citation(s) | 714 F.3d 694 |
Case history | |
Prior history | 784 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Barrington Daniels Parker Jr., Peter W. Hall, J. Clifford Wallace (9th Cir.) |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Parker, joined by Hall |
Concur/dissent | Wallace |
Cariou was criticized, both by academics and other courts, for giving too much weight to transformative use in determining fair use. In 2021, another Second Circuit panel hearing Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith on appeal, decided that "some clarification is in order" since the trial court had read too much into its decision that Andy Warhol's Orange Prince had sufficiently transformed the photograph it was based on as not to be infringing. Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision.