Skip to main content
U.S.

Supreme Court to hear key cases involving pork, copyright infringement

Oct 11, 2022

Share

The Supreme Court is set to continue its new term with important cases that could affect American pork prices and copyright infringement rules. The first case, set to be heard Tuesday, involves a California animal cruelty law.

Voters passed Proposition 12 back in 2018. It stipulates that pork sold in the state needs to come from pigs whose mothers were raised with at least 24 square feet of space.

Two pork industry groups sued over the proposition. The Iowa-based National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation argue nearly all of California’s pork comes from out of state, and the majority of sows aren’t raised under conditions that would meet Proposition 12′s standards.

The question for the high court is whether California has impermissibly burdened the pork market and improperly regulated an industry outside its borders. Pork produces said complying with Proposition 12 could cost the industry $290 million to $350 million.

After the pork case, the Supreme Court is set to hear a copyright case over a painting of the late rock star Prince done by the iconic artist Andy Warhol. The painting was based on a photograph taken of Prince by celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith in 1981.

Goldsmith was photographing Prince for Newsweek magazine. Warhol made 14 silkscreen prints and two pencil illustrations based on one of the photos.

Goldsmith said she learned of Warhol’s works only after Prince’s 2016 death. She countersued the Andy Warhol Foundation for copyright infringement in 2017 after it asked a Manhattan federal court to rule that his works did not violate her rights. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the estate’s appeal of a lower court’s decision favoring Goldsmith.

The case centers on how courts decide when an artist makes “fair use” of another’s work under copyright law. The dispute over the legal boundary between inspiration and misuse has drawn broad interest for its implications for artists.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Tags: , ,

WITH THE SUPREME COURT BACK IN SESSION — ARGUMENTS ARE EXPECTED IN TWO CASES THAT HAVE GRABBED A LOT OF ATTENTION.
ONE…CAN CALIFORNIA IMPOSE REGULATIONS OTHER STATES HAVE TO FOLLOW?
AND TWO…THE JUSTICES WILL WALK THE FINE LINE BETWEEN ART INSPIRATION AND LEGAL LIMBO.
AS MUCH AS AMERICA LOVES ITS BACON…
WE DON’T LOVE THINKING ABOUT THE PROCESS GETTING IT TO THE KITCHEN TABLE.
AN ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUP IN CALIFORNIA FOUGHT FOR PIGS TO HAVE MORE SPACE TO MOVE AROUND IN THEIR DENS.
THEY GOT THE MEASURE PUT ON THE STATE BALLOT IN 20-18 AND IT PASSED. BUT WAS QUICKLY PAUSED BY LAWSUITS.
PROBLEM IS…CALIFORNIA DOESN’T GET ITS PORK FROM CALIFORNIA.
IT’S FROM OUTSIDE RANCHERS…HEAVILY IN THE MIDWEST.
WHICH MEANS CALIFORNIA’S LAW IS ACTUALLY FOR OTHER STATES TO ABIDE BY.
THE NATIONWIDE RAMIFICATION IF THE LAW STAYS? HIGHER PORK PRICES. AND A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.
BUT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION SAYS…THEY’RE FOR IT.
HOPING TO MAKE THE WAY PORK IS RAISED A LITTLE MORE HUMANE.
LOOKING AHEAD TO TOMORROW — THE COURT IS SET TO HEAR ARGUMENTS IN A CASE OVER PAINTINGS OF PRINCE DONE BY ICONIC ARTIST ANDY WARHOL.
THE PAINTINGS WERE BASED OFF A PHOTO TAKEN BY A CELEBRITY PHOTOGRAPHER.
A CLASSIC COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT SUIT BETWEEN THE PHOTOGRAPHER…AND THE ARTIST’S ESTATE.
WHEN DOES SOMETHING INSPIRE ART…AND WHEN IS IT CONSIDERED STOLEN?
THAT’S FOR THE HIGHEST COURT TO CONSIDER.