The argument in this piece is a classic example of slippery slope-ism. The question of fair use, or of balancing between copyright maximalism and copyright minimalism, is a so-called line-drawing problem (given a spectrum of cases, deciding where the line of “ok” vs “not ok” should be). The article says that ANY decision in favor of the photographer/against Warhol would basically ruin fair use doctrine.
This proposition has barely a hint of truth in it. Especially considering how clever lawyers, SCOTUS justices included, can be in distinguishing one case from the next.
This proposition has barely a hint of truth in it. Especially considering how clever lawyers, SCOTUS justices included, can be in distinguishing one case from the next.
I’d hardly be worried.