Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508

Background

Lynn Goldsmith photographed Prince in 1981 and owns copyright in a studio portrait she licensed to Vanity Fair in 1984 as a one-time "artist reference"; Vanity Fair hired Andy Warhol to make a silkscreen illustration.
Warhol created a 16-work “Prince Series” derived from Goldsmith’s photo; Warhol died and the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF) later claimed copyright in those works.
In 2016 AWF licensed its Orange Prince silkscreen to Condé Nast for a commemorative Prince magazine cover for $10,000; Goldsmith received neither a fee nor credit and asserted infringement.
AWF sued for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement or, alternatively, fair use; Goldsmith counterclaimed for infringement.
District court granted summary judgment for AWF on fair use; the Second Circuit reversed, holding all four fair-use factors favored Goldsmith.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the first fair-use factor: whether the “purpose and character” of AWF’s commercial licensing of Orange Prince supports fair use.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Goldsmith)	Defendant's Argument (AWF)	Held
1. Whether the first fair-use factor favors AWF’s 2016 commercial licensing of Orange Prince	The licensing competes with Goldsmith’s market for editorial portraits and substitutes for her photograph; purpose and character align with Goldsmith (favors plaintiff).	AWF: Warhol’s works are transformative—add new expression/meaning—so the first factor favors fair use despite commercial licensing.	The Court held the first factor favors Goldsmith: AWF’s specific challenged use (commercial license to illustrate a Prince magazine) shares the same purpose as Goldsmith’s photograph and is commercial, so it does not favor fair use.
2. Role of “transformative” meaning or message in factor one	Goldsmith argued that mere stylistic differences are insufficient to immunize a use that serves the same purpose and market.	AWF argued that new expression/meaning (e.g., commentary on celebrity) makes the works transformative and supports fair use.	The Court: New expression/meaning is relevant but not dispositive; transformative purpose must be sufficiently distinct and weighed against commercialism—here it was not compelling.
3. Whether courts should assess the creator’s artistic intent or the specific challenged use	Goldsmith: focus must be on the particular use alleged to infringe (the licensing), not the artist’s subjective intent.	AWF: emphasis on Warhol’s artistic transformation and its character as work should control.	The Court applied an objective inquiry into the specific use alleged (AWF’s commercial license) rather than art-critic judgments about intent; that use shared purpose with the original.
4. Interaction between commercial nature and transformative character	Goldsmith: commercial licensing that serves the same function as the original weighs against fair use.	AWF: commerciality is not dispositive; strong transformativeness should outweigh commercial nature.	The Court reiterated that commerciality is a relevant element of factor one; where the use is commercial and shares the original’s purpose, transformativeness must be especially compelling to tip the balance—AWF did not meet that burden.

Key Cases Cited

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (parody and transformative-use framework; transformativeness as central to factor 1 and its relation to commerciality)
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. (2021) (use of "transformative" inquiry in a different technological context; commerciality can be outweighed by transformative purpose)
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (importance of market effect factor and interplay among factors)
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (commercial versus noncommercial uses and fair-use analysis)
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (standards for originality and scope of copyright protection)