Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

16  ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. 

v. GOLDSMITH 
Opinion of the Court 

in the sense that copying is socially useful ex post.  Many
secondary works add something new.  That alone does not 
render such uses fair.  Rather, the first factor (which is just
one factor in a larger analysis) asks “whether and to what 
extent” the use at issue has a purpose or character different 
from  the  original.  Campbell,  510  U. S.,  at  579  (emphasis 
added).  The larger the difference, the more likely the first 
factor weighs in favor of fair use.  The smaller the differ-
ence, the less likely. 

A use that has a further purpose or different character is
said to be “ ‘transformative.’ ”   Ibid. (quoting P. Leval, To-
ward  a  Fair  Use  Standard,  103  Harv.  L. Rev.  1105,  1111 
(1990)  (hereinafter  Leval)).  As  before,  “transformative-
ness” is a matter of degree.  See Campbell, 510 U. S., at 579. 
That is important because the word “transform,” though not
included in §107, appears elsewhere in the Copyright Act. 
The statute defines derivative works, which the copyright 
owner has “the exclusive righ[t]” to prepare, §106(2), to in-
clude “any other form in which a work may be recast, trans-
formed, or adapted,” §101.  In other words, the owner has a 
right  to  derivative  transformations  of  her  work.  Such 
transformations may be substantial, like the adaptation of
a book into a movie.  To be sure, this right is “[s]ubject to” 
fair  use.  §106;  see  also  §107.  The  two  are  not  mutually 
exclusive.  But an overbroad concept of transformative use,
one  that  includes  any  further  purpose,  or  any  different 
character,  would  narrow  the  copyright  owner’s  exclusive
right to create derivative works.  To preserve that right, the
degree of transformation required to make “transformative” 
use of an original must go beyond that required to qualify 
as a derivative.5 

—————— 

5 In theory, the question of transformative use or transformative pur-
pose can be separated from the question whether there has been trans-
formation of a work.  In practice, however, the two may overlap.  Com-
pare, e.g., Núñez v. Caribbean Int’l News Corp., 235 F. 3d 18, 21–23 (CA1