Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 17

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

which the Court of Appeals believed would “create a celeb-
rity-plagiarist  privilege.”  Id.,  at  43;  see  also  ibid.  (“[T]he
fact that Martin Scorsese’s recent film The Irishman is rec-
ognizably ‘a Scorsese’ does not absolve him of the obligation
to license the original book” (some internal quotation marks 
and alterations omitted)).

On  the  other  three  factors,  the  Court  of  Appeals  found
that  the  creative  and  unpublished  nature  of  Goldsmith’s
photograph favored her, id., at 45; that the amount and sub-
stantiality of the portion taken (here, “the ‘essence’ ” of the 
photograph) was not reasonable in relation to the purpose
of the use, id., at 45–47; and that AWF’s commercial licens-
ing encroached on Goldsmith’s protected market to license
her photograph “to publications for editorial purposes and 
to other artists to create derivative works,” id., at 48–51.3 
The  court  noted  that  there  was  “no  material  dispute  that
both  Goldsmith  and  AWF  have  sought  to  license  (and  in-
deed have successfully licensed) their respective depictions
of Prince to popular print magazines to accompany articles 
about him.”  Id., at 49 (footnote omitted). 

Finally, although the District Court had not reached the
issue, the Court of Appeals rejected AWF’s argument that
the  Prince  Series  works  were  not  substantially  similar  to 
Goldsmith’s photograph.  See id., at 52–54. 

Judge  Jacobs  concurred.    He  stressed  that  the  Court  of 
Appeals’  holding  “d[id]  not  consider,  let  alone  decide, 
whether  the  infringement  here  encumbers  the  original
Prince Series works.”  Id., at 54.  Instead, “the only use at 

—————— 

3 The  Court  of  Appeals  considered  not  only  the  possibility  of  market
harm caused by the actions of AWF but also “whether ‘unrestricted and 
widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by [AWF] would result in a
substantially  adverse  impact  on  the  potential  market’ ”  for  the  photo-
graph, including the market for derivative works.  11 F. 4th 26, 49–50 
(CA2 2021) (quoting Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U. S. 569, 
590  (1994));  see  also  Harper  &  Row,  Publishers,  Inc.  v.  Nation  Enter-
prises, 471 U. S. 539, 568 (1985).