Whenever there is a Supreme Court decision, it means I’ll have to rush some work so that my client’s hot take is out first.

One of my “supreme” clients has been watching the Warhol case in particular — we had written about how Warhol’s work “scored” on the fair use test after the circuit split. Warhol was actually only one of several fair use cases my client wrote about with me.

Usually I’m able to keep shop talk at the shop, but I get nauseous whenever I hear a hard-working creative say something in their work is fair use. I imagine them putting blood, sweat, and tears into the work they’re talking about and a moral dilemma arises. Do I risk my already low popularity by being a non-lawyer talking about the law?

So I don’t try to tell them about the law, I tell them about reality.

“People have devoted their entire lives to understanding the fair use doctrine. Lay people misunderstanding fair use is a perennial source of laughter for lawyers. You wouldn’t perform surgery on yourself, would you?”

Maybe it’s my personality, but no one ever seems thankful for learning they may have to drastically alter their passion project. But if I smash a layer of someone’s naïvité, I know from experience that I’m doing them a favor.