{"id":47561,"date":"2023-05-23T11:43:30","date_gmt":"2023-05-23T15:43:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/?p=47561"},"modified":"2023-11-27T04:48:45","modified_gmt":"2023-11-27T09:48:45","slug":"supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Rules Against Warhol Foundation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"A<\/a>

Andy Warhol<\/p><\/div>\n

Last April, I wrote about <\/span>an upcoming Supreme Court<\/span><\/a> case concerning Andy Warhol\u2019s Prince portraits. Well, the justices have reached their ruling. In a 7-2 decision, the court has decided against the Andy Warhol Foundation, finding that their licensing of <\/span>Orange Prince<\/span><\/i><\/a> to <\/span>Cond\u00e9 Nast<\/span><\/i> in 2016 does not qualify as fair use and therefore violates the copyright of Lynn Goldsmith\u2019s original 1981 photograph upon which the Warhol is based.<\/span><\/p>\n

In 1981, music photographer Lynn Goldsmith photographed the singer Prince Rogers Nelson, who was in the middle of creating his album <\/span>Controversy<\/span><\/i>. In 1984, when Prince gained popularity after releasing Purple Rain, <\/span>Vanity Fair<\/span><\/i> ran <\/span>an article<\/span><\/a> about rock\u2019s newest sensation. They asked Goldsmith if she would license her photograph as an artist reference to create an original illustration. Goldsmith agreed, and Vanity Fair paid her $400. They didn\u2019t tell her the artist they contracted was Andy Warhol. Goldsmith insisted that this licensing would be for one use only. However, Warhol created an entire series of Prince portraits, consisting of thirteen silkscreen prints and three pencil drawings. Goldsmith was not aware of this until 2016, after Prince\u2019s death. <\/span>Cond\u00e9 Nast<\/span><\/i>, for a special edition commemorating Prince, <\/span>used <\/span>Orange Prince<\/span><\/i><\/a> on the front cover. The Andy Warhol Foundation had licensed the image for $10,000. After Goldsmith alleged that this licensing violated her photo\u2019s copyright, the AWF sued her.<\/span><\/p>\n

In this case, the central argument comes down to whether or not the AWF\u2019s licensing of <\/span>Orange Prince<\/span><\/i> to <\/span>Cond\u00e9 Nast<\/span><\/i> constitutes fair use, which has four factors. According to section 107 of the United States Code Title 17, the four fair use factors are 1) the purpose and character of the use, 2) the nature of the copyrighted work, 3) the extent to which the copyrighted work was used in the derivative work, and 4) the effect the use has on the potential market value of the original work. The first factor, regarding the purpose and character of the use, is the most important in this instance. Using a copyrighted work qualifies as fair use if the use is considered transformative. Furthermore, if the use of a copyrighted work is for commercial purposes, this often points toward the derivative work not being fair use. Fair use of copyrighted work mostly applies outside of a purely commercial setting, mainly for criticism, news reporting, education, or parody.<\/span><\/p>\n

Originally, the District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the AWF in 2019, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision. The AWF relied largely on the first of the four fair use factors concerning the purpose of character of the use. According to the Foundation, taking a photograph, cropping it, and turning it orange is sufficiently transformative since it turns Prince \u201cfrom a vulnerable, uncomfortable person to an iconic, larger-than-life figure\u201d. The Foundation and the district court held that the other three fair use factors were unimportant.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, found that the Warhol print and the Goldsmith photograph both serve the same purpose: just as a portrait accompanying articles about Prince. The AWF argued that Warhol added a new expression to the photograph, which they claim made sufficient transformative use. Sotomayor dismisses this: “Orange Prince crops, flattens, traces, and colors the photo but otherwise does not alter it.\u201d Furthermore, Sotomayor writes that the Goldsmith photograph and the Warhol print \u201cshare substantially the same commercial purpose.\u201d So, because the print and the photo serve the same purpose, and because the print\u2019s use by the AWF was for commercial licensing, the court decided that AWF\u2019s actions were not fair use and therefore violated Goldsmith\u2019s copyright.<\/span><\/p>\n

Something important to clarify here is that Goldsmith is not alleging that all of the works in Warhol\u2019s Prince Series are an infringement on her copyright. Only the specific use of <\/span>Orange Prince<\/span><\/i> on the cover of <\/span>Cond\u00e9 Nast<\/span><\/i>, as well as the fact that Goldsmith was not credited or compensated for it, is the offending incident. This might have been a different story if the print had been sufficiently transformative. You don\u2019t need to look beyond Warhol\u2019s oeuvre to see examples of the transformative use of copyrighted material. He frequently used copyrighted logos like <\/span>Campbell\u2019s<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Coca-Cola<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Brillo<\/span><\/a>, and <\/span>Muratti<\/span><\/a>. However, the works serve not as advertisements but as commentary on contemporary consumerism.<\/span><\/p>\n

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that this decision \u201cwill impede new art and music and literature. It will thwart the expression of new ideas and the attainment of new knowledge.\u201d While protecting the arts is something that I think any thinking person would agree with, I believe Kagan, as well as Chief Justice Roberts who joined her dissent, may be overreacting. The court did not decide that the Prince Series was copyright infringement, just the one specific instance of the AWF licensing <\/span>Orange Prince<\/span><\/i> for use in a magazine without crediting Goldsmith. It is unknown whether <\/span>Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts Inc. v. Goldsmith<\/span><\/i> will set any new precedent or dramatically alter how copyright cases are handled in American courts. With relatively frequent copyright infringement accusations against some artists like Jeff Koons and Richard Prince, that may be the case. But we don\u2019t know that right now. Now is the time to congratulate Goldsmith on gaining the recognition that she did deserve.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last April, I wrote about an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning Andy Warhol\u2019s Prince portraits. Well, the justices have reached their ruling. In a 7-2 decision, the court has decided against the Andy Warhol Foundation, finding that their licensing of … More…<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":47562,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,1],"tags":[224,72,142,367,269,120,44,164,11,9,386,32,175],"class_list":["post-47561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-rehs-galleries","category-rehs-contemporary","tag-20th-century-american-art","tag-american-art","tag-court","tag-crime-and-punishment","tag-legal-matters","tag-modern-art","tag-photography","tag-pop-art","tag-rehs-contemporary-news","tag-rehs-galleries-news","tag-tales-from-the-dark-side","tag-the-dark-side","tag-warhol"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court Rules Against Warhol Foundation<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Supreme Court ruled that the Andy Warhol Foundation violated a photographer's copyright when it licensed a Warhol print to Cond\u00e9 Nast.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court Rules Against Warhol Foundation\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court ruled that the Andy Warhol Foundation violated a photographer's copyright when it licensed a Warhol print to Cond\u00e9 Nast.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Rehs Galleries\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/RehsGalleriesInc\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-05-23T15:43:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-27T09:48:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Andy_Warhol_at_the_Jewish_Museum_by_Bernard_Gotfryd_\u2013_LOC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"930\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Nathan Scheer\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Nathan Scheer\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Nathan Scheer\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/1d33fd182b28afdad8fc3548ffe6bdc4\"},\"headline\":\"Supreme Court Rules Against Warhol Foundation\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-05-23T15:43:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-27T09:48:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":905,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/Andy_Warhol_at_the_Jewish_Museum_by_Bernard_Gotfryd_\u2013_LOC.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"20th Century American Art\",\"American Art\",\"court\",\"Crime and Punishment\",\"Legal Matters\",\"Modern Art\",\"photography\",\"Pop Art\",\"Rehs Contemporary - Art World News\",\"Rehs Galleries - Art World News\",\"tales from the dark side\",\"The Dark Side of the Art World\",\"warhol\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Rehs 19th & 20th\",\"Rehs Contemporary\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court Rules Against Warhol Foundation\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/Andy_Warhol_at_the_Jewish_Museum_by_Bernard_Gotfryd_\u2013_LOC.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-05-23T15:43:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-27T09:48:45+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Supreme Court ruled that the Andy Warhol Foundation violated a photographer's copyright when it licensed a Warhol print to Cond\u00e9 Nast.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/Andy_Warhol_at_the_Jewish_Museum_by_Bernard_Gotfryd_\u2013_LOC.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/Andy_Warhol_at_the_Jewish_Museum_by_Bernard_Gotfryd_\u2013_LOC.jpg\",\"width\":640,\"height\":930,\"caption\":\"Andy Warhol\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/2023\\\/05\\\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court Rules Against Warhol Foundation\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/\",\"name\":\"Rehs Galleries\",\"description\":\"Offering and acquiring high quality paintings in excellent condition. Family owned and operated for more than 80 years!\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Rehs Galleries\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2015\\\/02\\\/indexlogo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2015\\\/02\\\/indexlogo.jpg\",\"width\":153,\"height\":85,\"caption\":\"Rehs Galleries\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/RehsGalleriesInc\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/rehsgalleries\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.instagram.com\\\/rehsgalleries\\\/?hl=en\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/rehscontemporary\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/twitter.com\\\/rehscgi\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.instagram.com\\\/rehscontemporary\\\/?hl=en\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/rehs.com\\\/eng\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/1d33fd182b28afdad8fc3548ffe6bdc4\",\"name\":\"Nathan Scheer\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e4fb9a1b35fd037d8f1a71aa5d753cf11c6ac1fc1663ed6ba66706ccb4fee0c8?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e4fb9a1b35fd037d8f1a71aa5d753cf11c6ac1fc1663ed6ba66706ccb4fee0c8?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/e4fb9a1b35fd037d8f1a71aa5d753cf11c6ac1fc1663ed6ba66706ccb4fee0c8?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Nathan Scheer\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court Rules Against Warhol Foundation","description":"The Supreme Court ruled that the Andy Warhol Foundation violated a photographer's copyright when it licensed a Warhol print to Cond\u00e9 Nast.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court Rules Against Warhol Foundation","og_description":"The Supreme Court ruled that the Andy Warhol Foundation violated a photographer's copyright when it licensed a Warhol print to Cond\u00e9 Nast.","og_url":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/","og_site_name":"Rehs Galleries","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/RehsGalleriesInc","article_published_time":"2023-05-23T15:43:30+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-27T09:48:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":930,"url":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Andy_Warhol_at_the_Jewish_Museum_by_Bernard_Gotfryd_\u2013_LOC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Nathan Scheer","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Nathan Scheer","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/"},"author":{"name":"Nathan Scheer","@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/#\/schema\/person\/1d33fd182b28afdad8fc3548ffe6bdc4"},"headline":"Supreme Court Rules Against Warhol Foundation","datePublished":"2023-05-23T15:43:30+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-27T09:48:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/"},"wordCount":905,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Andy_Warhol_at_the_Jewish_Museum_by_Bernard_Gotfryd_\u2013_LOC.jpg","keywords":["20th Century American Art","American Art","court","Crime and Punishment","Legal Matters","Modern Art","photography","Pop Art","Rehs Contemporary - Art World News","Rehs Galleries - Art World News","tales from the dark side","The Dark Side of the Art World","warhol"],"articleSection":["Rehs 19th & 20th","Rehs Contemporary"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/","url":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/","name":"Supreme Court Rules Against Warhol Foundation","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Andy_Warhol_at_the_Jewish_Museum_by_Bernard_Gotfryd_\u2013_LOC.jpg","datePublished":"2023-05-23T15:43:30+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-27T09:48:45+00:00","description":"The Supreme Court ruled that the Andy Warhol Foundation violated a photographer's copyright when it licensed a Warhol print to Cond\u00e9 Nast.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Andy_Warhol_at_the_Jewish_Museum_by_Bernard_Gotfryd_\u2013_LOC.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Andy_Warhol_at_the_Jewish_Museum_by_Bernard_Gotfryd_\u2013_LOC.jpg","width":640,"height":930,"caption":"Andy Warhol"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-rules-against-warhol-foundation\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court Rules Against Warhol Foundation"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/#website","url":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/","name":"Rehs Galleries","description":"Offering and acquiring high quality paintings in excellent condition. Family owned and operated for more than 80 years!","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/#organization","name":"Rehs Galleries","url":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/indexlogo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/indexlogo.jpg","width":153,"height":85,"caption":"Rehs Galleries"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/RehsGalleriesInc","https:\/\/x.com\/rehsgalleries","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/rehsgalleries\/?hl=en","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/rehscontemporary\/","https:\/\/twitter.com\/rehscgi","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/rehscontemporary\/?hl=en"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/#\/schema\/person\/1d33fd182b28afdad8fc3548ffe6bdc4","name":"Nathan Scheer","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e4fb9a1b35fd037d8f1a71aa5d753cf11c6ac1fc1663ed6ba66706ccb4fee0c8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e4fb9a1b35fd037d8f1a71aa5d753cf11c6ac1fc1663ed6ba66706ccb4fee0c8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e4fb9a1b35fd037d8f1a71aa5d753cf11c6ac1fc1663ed6ba66706ccb4fee0c8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Nathan Scheer"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47561","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47561"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47561\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48897,"href":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47561\/revisions\/48897"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/47562"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47561"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47561"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rehs.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47561"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}