Draft Supreme Court Opinion on Andy Warhol’s Prince Painting

For the first time in two years, the Supreme Court has challenged to clarify the “fair use” defense to claims of copyright infringement. The previous attempt was Google versus Oracle.
ORCL
, which confused the defense more than ever by allowing extensive verbatim copying for dubious reasons. In latest lawsuit, Supreme Court decides whether Andy Warhol’s colorized painting of Prince’s photograph is protected by fair use defense to photographer’s copyright infringement claims in pending litigation I’m trying

The decision in this case will have far-reaching and significant implications for Hollywood and will be cited for decades to come. is almost certain. To avoid that outcome, and in the interest of fairness, I humbly present to the Supreme Court two possible draft dissents in this case.

The text of the opinion judgment in favor of Andy Warhol’s paintings:

“I hereby declare that the majority of the judges, after comparing the painting and the photograph, made a heartfelt judgment and decided that the painting did not infringe the photograph. Let’s use the defense.”

[Optional additional provisions:]

1. [Long-winded and irrelevant discussion of a list of the four factors to supposedly consider in Copyright Act Section 107, the fair use defense statute.]

2. [Long-winded and circular discussion concluding that the painting is “transformative,” even though that is not one of the factors listed in the fair use statute.]

3. [Long-winded and unconvincing discussion attempting to distinguish prior inconsistent cases that ruled against the fair use defense and attempting to analogize to cases that upheld the fair use defense.]

Four. [Long-winded pre-ordained conclusion that the painting is protected by the fair use defense.]

Verdict on Andy Warhol painting:

“The majority of the judges, after comparing paintings and photographs, have decided in their hearts that they believe that paintings infringe photographs, and hereby declare that they should use the defense.”

[Optional additional provisions:]

1. [Long-winded and irrelevant discussion of a list of the four factors to supposedly consider in Copyright Act Section 107, the fair use defense statute.]

2. [Long-winded and circular discussion concluding that the painting is not “transformative,” even though that is not one of the factors listed in the fair use statute.]

3. [Long-winded and unconvincing discussion attempting to distinguish prior inconsistent cases that upheld the fair use defense and attempting to analogize to cases that ruled against the fair use defense.]

Four. [Long-winded pre-ordained conclusion that the painting is not protected by the fair use defense.]

Final paragraph of both decisions:

“This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. So ordered.”