Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith
598 U.S. 508
SCOTUS2023Background
- Lynn Goldsmith took a 1981 copyrighted studio photograph of Prince and licensed it to Vanity Fair in 1984 as an "artist reference" for a one-time illustration; she was paid and credited.
- Andy Warhol used Goldsmith’s photo to create a series of 16 silkscreen works (the "Prince Series"); Vanity Fair published one Warhol image in 1984. Warhol later died and the Warhol Foundation (AWF) acquired rights to the series.
- In 2016 AWF licensed one Prince Series image (Orange Prince) to Condé Nast for a commercial special-issue magazine commemorating Prince; AWF received $10,000 and Goldsmith received no payment or credit.
- Goldsmith sued for copyright infringement; AWF sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and asserted fair use. The District Court granted summary judgment for AWF on fair use; the Second Circuit reversed, finding all four fair-use factors favored Goldsmith.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to whether the first fair-use factor (purpose and character of the use, including commerciality) favors AWF’s 2016 commercial license of Orange Prince.
- The Court held the first factor favors Goldsmith because AWF’s licensed use (a commercial magazine cover portrait of Prince) shares the same purpose and commercial character as Goldsmith’s photograph, and AWF offered no independent justification sufficient to overcome that overlap.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Goldsmith) | Defendant's Argument (AWF) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the first fair-use factor favors AWF’s 2016 commercial license of Orange Prince | Goldsmith: AWF’s use is commercially substitutive and shares the same purpose as her photograph, so factor one disfavors fair use | AWF: Warhol’s works are transformative—they add new expression/meaning—so the first factor favors fair use despite commercial licensing | Held: Factor one favors Goldsmith. The specific challenged use (licensing Orange Prince for a Prince magazine) shares the original’s purpose and is commercial; added expression alone is insufficient here |
| Whether adding new expression/meaning (Warhol’s aesthetic) automatically makes a use transformative for factor one | Goldsmith: New expression does not automatically prevail if the challenged use serves the same purpose and is commercial | AWF: The Prince Series conveys a different meaning (iconification/critique of celebrity), so it is transformative | Held: New expression/meaning is relevant but not dispositive; transformative purpose must be a sufficiently distinct use, beyond merely applying an artist’s style |
| Whether courts should assess fair use by the content/meaning of the secondary work rather than the specific challenged use | Goldsmith: Analysis must focus on the specific use alleged to infringe (here, commercial licensing to Condé Nast) | AWF: The nature of Warhol’s artworks themselves supports transformative purpose regardless of subsequent licensing | Held: The statute and precedent require examining the particular use alleged to infringe; the Court limits its holding to AWF’s 2016 license and not the creation, display, or sale of the original Prince Series works |
| Role of commerciality and market substitution in factor one | Goldsmith: Commercial licensing and similar purpose to the original counsel against fair use absent strong independent justification | AWF: Commerciality should be outweighed by the work’s transformative character | Held: Commercial nature is a significant element of factor one and here, combined with shared purpose, weighs against AWF absent compelling justification |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Acuff‑Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (factor one centers on whether the new work is transformative by adding new purpose/meaning; commerciality is relevant but not dispositive)
- Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. _ (2021) (reiterated transformative-use inquiry; context and justification can outweigh commercial character)
- Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (commerciality and market harm weigh heavily against fair use)
- Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (copyright protects original expression; substantial similarity requires protecting original elements)
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (commercial/nonprofit character is an element of factor one to be weighed with others)
- Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015) (discusses transformative purpose and justification in the context of fair use)