Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 25

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

A use that shares the purpose of a copyrighted work, by con-
trast, is more likely to provide “the public with a substantial 
substitute  for  matter  protected  by  the  [copyright  owner’s] 
interests in the original wor[k] or derivatives of [it],” id., at 
207, which undermines the goal of copyright.

In a narrower sense, a use may be justified because copy-
ing is reasonably necessary to achieve the user’s new pur-
pose.  Parody, for example, “needs to mimic an original to
make  its  point.”    Campbell,  510  U. S.,  at  580–581.    Simi-
larly, other commentary or criticism that targets an origi-
nal work may have compelling reason to “ ‘conjure up’ ” the
original by borrowing from it.  Id., at 588.7  An independent
justification  like  this  is  particularly  relevant  to  assessing 
fair use where an original work and copying use share the 
same or highly similar purposes, or where wide dissemina-
tion  of  a  secondary  work  would  otherwise  run  the  risk  of 
substitution  for  the  original  or  licensed  derivatives  of  it. 
See id., at 580, n. 14; Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 557.  Once 
again,  the  question  of  justification  is  one  of  degree.    See 
Leval  1111  (“[I]t  is  not  sufficient  simply  to  conclude
whether or not justification exists.  The question remains
how  powerful,  or  persuasive,  is  the  justification,  because
the court must weigh the strength of the secondary user’s 
justification against factors favoring the copyright owner”).
In sum, the first fair use factor considers whether the use 
of  a  copyrighted  work  has  a  further  purpose  or  different
character,  which  is  a  matter  of  degree,  and  the  degree  of 

—————— 

7 Return to the example of a book review.  The review’s use of quoted 
material  may  be  justified  in  both  the  broad  and  the  narrower  senses. 
First, the use is likely to serve a different purpose than the material it-
self.  See n. 4, supra.  Second, there may be compelling reason to borrow
from the original to achieve that purpose because the review targets the
material for comment or criticism.  But again, the question of justifica-
tion will depend on the individual use or uses.  See Patry, Fair Use §3:1, 
at 129–130.  Even book reviews are not entitled to a presumption of fair-
ness.  Campbell, 510 U. S., at 581.