安迪·沃霍尔基金会诉戈德史密斯案中的变革使用测试

Shiwon Ryu
{"title":"安迪·沃霍尔基金会诉戈德史密斯案中的变革使用测试","authors":"Shiwon Ryu","doi":"10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We met only a few cases that assessed fair use over ten years since fair use clause were introduced to our copyright act. Therefore, a pile of U.S. fair use cases that have accumulated in the fields of art and technology can be good reference to interpreting our fair use clause. The concept of transformative use bears a significant role in fair use analysis of U.S. case law. The U.S. Supreme Court defines the transformative use as adding new purpose or character to the original works by changing its “expression, meaning or messages”, and accepted the fair use defense in Campbell and Google mainly based on its assessment that the the use was transformative in each case. The role of transformativeness is essential in realization of the purpose of fair use doctrine, i.e., flexibly responding to technological changes in order to provide “breathing room” for freedom of expression. There also exist concerns regarding this concept as increasing vagueness of fair use standards leading to declined predictability, as well as harming carefully designed balance between copyright protection and fair use. Conflicting interests were expressed in a recent case related to a portrait photograph work employed in appropriation art works, Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. As the district court and the appellate court arrived at opposite conclusions showing different views on transformativeness of Andy Warhol’s works, the U.S. Supreme Court is to resolve issues regarding limits of transformative use. As reviewed in this article, it was timely and meaningful attempt that the appellate court sought for the balance of conflicting interests of copyright owners and users while paying attention to the relationship between derivative works and transformative use. However, the appellate court decision exposed some limitations in terms of compatibility with the Supreme Court’s standards and its logic of interpretation. The Supreme Court’s decision to be made would have great meaning in modern application of fair use clause, and bring about great impact in the creation of modern art and licensing business. Also, the issues being dealt with in this case bear significance in our own situation where Korean Supreme Court provides no specific standards on the application of our fair use clause which was imported from U.S. copyright law.","PeriodicalId":350441,"journal":{"name":"Korea Copyright Commission","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transformative Use under Test in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith\",\"authors\":\"Shiwon Ryu\",\"doi\":\"10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We met only a few cases that assessed fair use over ten years since fair use clause were introduced to our copyright act. Therefore, a pile of U.S. fair use cases that have accumulated in the fields of art and technology can be good reference to interpreting our fair use clause. The concept of transformative use bears a significant role in fair use analysis of U.S. case law. The U.S. Supreme Court defines the transformative use as adding new purpose or character to the original works by changing its “expression, meaning or messages”, and accepted the fair use defense in Campbell and Google mainly based on its assessment that the the use was transformative in each case. The role of transformativeness is essential in realization of the purpose of fair use doctrine, i.e., flexibly responding to technological changes in order to provide “breathing room” for freedom of expression. There also exist concerns regarding this concept as increasing vagueness of fair use standards leading to declined predictability, as well as harming carefully designed balance between copyright protection and fair use. Conflicting interests were expressed in a recent case related to a portrait photograph work employed in appropriation art works, Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. As the district court and the appellate court arrived at opposite conclusions showing different views on transformativeness of Andy Warhol’s works, the U.S. Supreme Court is to resolve issues regarding limits of transformative use. As reviewed in this article, it was timely and meaningful attempt that the appellate court sought for the balance of conflicting interests of copyright owners and users while paying attention to the relationship between derivative works and transformative use. However, the appellate court decision exposed some limitations in terms of compatibility with the Supreme Court’s standards and its logic of interpretation. The Supreme Court’s decision to be made would have great meaning in modern application of fair use clause, and bring about great impact in the creation of modern art and licensing business. Also, the issues being dealt with in this case bear significance in our own situation where Korean Supreme Court provides no specific standards on the application of our fair use clause which was imported from U.S. copyright law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":350441,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korea Copyright Commission\",\"volume\":\"82 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korea Copyright Commission\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korea Copyright Commission","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30582/kdps.2022.35.4.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自从合理使用条款被引入我国版权法以来,我们只遇到过少数几个评估合理使用的案例。因此,美国在艺术和技术领域积累的一堆合理使用案例可以很好地参考解释我们的合理使用条款。变革性使用的概念在美国判例法的合理使用分析中占有重要地位。美国最高法院将“变革性使用”定义为通过改变原作品的“表达、意义或信息”,为原作品增加新的目的或特征,并在Campbell和Google案中接受合理使用辩护,主要基于其对每种情况下的使用具有变革性的评估。在实现合理使用原则的目的,即灵活应对技术变化,为言论自由提供“喘息空间”的过程中,变革性的作用是必不可少的。对于这一概念也存在担忧,因为合理使用标准越来越模糊,导致可预见性下降,并损害版权保护和合理使用之间精心设计的平衡。在最近一起涉及盗用艺术作品的肖像摄影作品的案件中,双方的利益冲突得到了体现,该案是安迪·沃霍尔基金会诉戈德史密斯案。由于地方法院和上诉法院对安迪·沃霍尔作品的变革性持不同意见,因此美国大法院将解决有关变革性使用的限制问题。本文认为,上诉法院在关注衍生作品与转化使用关系的同时,寻求著作权人与使用者利益冲突的平衡,是一种及时而有意义的尝试。然而,上诉法院的判决在与最高法院标准的兼容性及其解释逻辑方面暴露出一些局限性。最高法院即将作出的判决将对合理使用条款的现代适用具有重大意义,对现代艺术创作和许可业务产生重大影响。对于从美国版权法引进的“合理使用条款”,韩国大法院没有规定具体的适用标准,因此本案所处理的问题也具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Transformative Use under Test in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith
We met only a few cases that assessed fair use over ten years since fair use clause were introduced to our copyright act. Therefore, a pile of U.S. fair use cases that have accumulated in the fields of art and technology can be good reference to interpreting our fair use clause. The concept of transformative use bears a significant role in fair use analysis of U.S. case law. The U.S. Supreme Court defines the transformative use as adding new purpose or character to the original works by changing its “expression, meaning or messages”, and accepted the fair use defense in Campbell and Google mainly based on its assessment that the the use was transformative in each case. The role of transformativeness is essential in realization of the purpose of fair use doctrine, i.e., flexibly responding to technological changes in order to provide “breathing room” for freedom of expression. There also exist concerns regarding this concept as increasing vagueness of fair use standards leading to declined predictability, as well as harming carefully designed balance between copyright protection and fair use. Conflicting interests were expressed in a recent case related to a portrait photograph work employed in appropriation art works, Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. As the district court and the appellate court arrived at opposite conclusions showing different views on transformativeness of Andy Warhol’s works, the U.S. Supreme Court is to resolve issues regarding limits of transformative use. As reviewed in this article, it was timely and meaningful attempt that the appellate court sought for the balance of conflicting interests of copyright owners and users while paying attention to the relationship between derivative works and transformative use. However, the appellate court decision exposed some limitations in terms of compatibility with the Supreme Court’s standards and its logic of interpretation. The Supreme Court’s decision to be made would have great meaning in modern application of fair use clause, and bring about great impact in the creation of modern art and licensing business. Also, the issues being dealt with in this case bear significance in our own situation where Korean Supreme Court provides no specific standards on the application of our fair use clause which was imported from U.S. copyright law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Limitations on Granting Copyrights to AI-Generated Works and Alternative Protection Methodologies The Meaning and Content of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution as a Standard for Constitutionality Review Determining Fair Use and the Role of Transformative Use Test: On the Rulings in Wofsy v. De Fontbrune Quo vadis, What will be the Future of Appropriation Art?: Focusing on “The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith” A Study on the Free Use of Public Works: Focused on the Seoul Central District Court’s 2019 Gadan 5207564 Decision
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1