The Supreme Court vs. Andy Warhol

<p>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? </p><p>Adam Liptak, who covers the court for The Times, explains a case that could change how art is made.</p><p>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.</p><p>Background reading: </p><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><p>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.</p>