A few days ago, the Supreme Court tried to answer a question that has long bedeviled the world of art: When is borrowing from an earlier artist an act of inspiration, and when is it theft? Adam Liptak, who covers the court for The Times, explains a case that could change how art is made.Guest: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/by/adam-liptak">Adam Liptak</a>, who covers the United States Supreme Court for The New York Times.Background reading: <ul><li>The Supreme Court justices considered whether the artist Andy Warhol<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/us/supreme-court-warhol-copyright.html"> was free to use</a> elements of a rock photographer’s portrait of the musician Prince.</li><li>The case<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/01/arts/design/appropriation-warhol-renaissance-copyright.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article"> could change the future of Western art</a> — and, in a sense, its history, too.</li></ul>For more information on today’s episode, visit <a href="http://nytimes.com/thedaily?smid=pc-thedaily">nytimes.com/thedaily</a>. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

Podurama

Home

Trending

Personal

Your Podcasts

New Episodes

My Files

Favourite Episodes

Tags (Folders)

Recently Played

Bookmarks

Followed Playlists

The Supreme Court vs. Andy Warhol

The Daily

AI Chapters

AI Insights

Reviews