Het Laatste Nieuws

Although the summer vacations are in full swing, Pictoright is not standing still. For example, we have again updated our FAQ with our latest insights on AI… arrow-right

Pictoright magazine number 29 is out now! In this issue we focus extensively on the developments in the field of Artificial Intelligence; we introduce you to a number… arrow-right

The additional distribution of the collective rights has been finalized. You will find the credit note and accompanying breakdown in your ‘mypictoright-acocunt’ or you will receive it… arrow-right

Following the Evaluation of the Copyright Contracts Act in 2020, a new proposal has been submitted to the Council of State: the Strengthening of Copyright Contracts… arrow-right

The European Parliament in Brussels recently passed the so-called ‘AI Act’ – a law that will regulate (the development of) Artificial Intelligence. This act includes new clauses that… arrow-right

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Pop Art artist Andy Warhol infringed on copyright protection rules when he created a series of silkscreens based on… arrow-right

Within European legislative bodies, a lot of hard work is being done on regulations that are going to apply to artificial intelligence: the so-called “AI Act”. Last… arrow-right

  On Monday, March 20, Diederik van Leeuwen was appointed president of Pictoright. He succeeds Bart Drenth, who resigned the chairmanship after becoming director of art and… arrow-right

  Next quarter the post-repartition will take place. If relevant to you, this will include the collective fees not previously paid to you over the years 2017… arrow-right

Together with the BBK, BNO, BOK, DuPho, Kunstenbond, NVJ/NVF and Platform BK, Pictoright has founded the Federatie Beeldrechten. From today you can visit the website! Image creators… arrow-right

Visual artist Peim van der Sloot (Utrecht, 1986) has been affiliated with Pictoright for his individual rights since 2020. In this video he talks about his work and… arrow-right

Pictoright has taken note of the ruling in the case of Dijkstra v. Dutch News, which has understandably caused some unrest among photographers. For details of this… arrow-right

  /app/assets/Logo-animatie-v3-19201080.mp4   It is Pictoright’s pleasure to invite you to attend the launch event of the Image Rights Federation on Thursday, February 16, at Pakhuis de… arrow-right

Pictoright has recently been receiving regular messages from creators concerned about developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI). For example, makers are sounding the alarm that their work is… arrow-right

Was your work used in French books, newspapers, magazines or television programs in 2022? Then fill out the forms you can find here: https://pictoright.nl/downloads/downloads-voor-makers/ and send… arrow-right

The December collective rights distribution has been completed. Go to the MyPictoright portal to view your credit note and the specification. Collective rights distribution 2021 In… arrow-right



/app/assets/gelukkig-nieuwjaar.mp4… arrow-right

Pictoright magazine #28 was recently published, and the affiliates who live in the Netherlands have already been able to find it on the mat. In this issue,… arrow-right


US Supreme Court rules: Warhol infringed photographer’s copyright

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Pop Art artist Andy Warhol infringed on copyright protection rules when he created a series of silkscreens based on a photograph of Prince. The case may have a major “chilling effect” on artists in the United States and beyond.
The case begins with a 1984 issue of the pop magazine Vanity Fair. The magazine wrote about Prince that year, following his hit Purple Rain, and asked photographer Lynn Goldsmith if Warhol could use her photo for $400 as a one-time “artist reference” for a silkscreen print that would be used for the magazine’s cover. After Prince’s passing in 2016, Goldsmith discovered that Warhol, who died in 1987, had not kept his end of the bargain at the time: he had created not one, but 16 silkscreens based on her photograph. One of these prints was re-used for a cover for a commemorative publication by Vanity Fair’s parent company, but this time without permission, compensation or name attribution.
When she made a complaint to Warhol’s heirs about this, a conflict arose, which has now led to this Supreme Court ruling. Pictoright previously wrote about this case in the Magazine: LINK. Although the case seems very colored by the circumstances of this case (the creation of the work, the initial license and so on), this result may in any case have a strong deterrent effect on artists and the art market.
Pictoright has developed the “Appropriation Art guideline” for cases like this in 2021. When two Pictoright affiliated artists clash over the use of one another’s work, Pictoright attempts to resolve the conflict using this guideline. Want to know more about this? Our “Appropriation Art Special” can be found by clicking here.