Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 49.0

4 

ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. 
v. GOLDSMITH 
GORSUCH, J., concurring 

Id.,  at  591.    Reading  §107  as  a  whole,  then,  it  supplies 
courts with a sequential chain of questions about the par-
ticular challenged use—starting with its purpose and char-
acter (in the first factor) and ending with its effect (in the 
fourth).  There is no double counting here.  Contra, post, at 
22  (KAGAN, J.,  dissenting).  Instead,  the  statute  proceeds 
from step to step, asking judges to assess whether the chal-
lenged use (as revealed by its purpose, character, amount 
of source material used, and effect) serves as a complement
to or a substitute for a copyrighted work.

With all this in mind, the Court’s decision seems to me 
exactly  right.  Does  Mr.  Warhol’s  image  seek  to  depict 
Prince  as  a  “larger-than-life”  icon  while  Ms.  Goldsmith’s 
photograph  attempts  to  cast  him  in  a  more  “vulnerable” 
light?  See ante, at 28–35; post, at 9–10, 35 (KAGAN, J., dis-
senting).  Or are the artistic purposes latent in the two im-
ages  and  their  aesthetic  character  actually  more  similar 
than that?  Happily, the law does not require judges to tan-
gle with questions so far beyond our competence.  Instead, 
the  first  fair-use  factor  requires  courts  to  assess  only 
whether the purpose and character of the challenged use is 
the same as a protected use.  And here, the undisputed facts
reveal that the Foundation sought to use its image as a com-
mercial  substitute  for  Ms.  Goldsmith’s  photograph.    Of 
course,  competitive  products  often  differ  in  material  re-
spects and a buyer may find these differences reason to pre-
fer one offering over another.  Cf. post, at 10, 18 (KAGAN, J., 
dissenting).  But under the first fair-use factor the salient 
point is that the purpose and character of the Foundation’s
use involved competition with Ms. Goldsmith’s image.  To 
know that much is to know the first fair-use factor favors 
Ms. Goldsmith. 

It  is  equally  important,  however,  to  acknowledge  what
this case does not involve and what the Court does not de-
cide.  Worried about the fate of artists seeking to portray
reclining nudes or papal authorities, or authors hoping to