Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 60

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

17 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

That new definition eviscerates copyright.  A movie stu-
dio that converts a book into a film without permission not 
only creates a new product (the film) but enables others to
“create  products”—film  reviews,  merchandise,  YouTube 
highlight  reels,  late  night  television  interviews,  and  the 
like.  Nearly every computer program, once copied, can be 
used to create new products.  Surely the majority would not 
say that an author can pirate the next version of Microsoft
Word  simply  because  he  can  use  it  to  create  new  manu-
scripts.11 

Ultimately,  the  majority  wrongly  conflates  transforma-
tive use with derivative use.  To be transformative, a work 
must do something fundamentally different from the origi-
nal.  A work that simply serves the same purpose in a new 
context—which  the  majority  concedes  is  true  here—is  de-
rivative, not transformative.  Congress made clear that Or-
acle  holds  “the  exclusive  rights  . . .  to  prepare  derivative 
works.”  §106(2).  Rather than create a transformative prod-
uct, Google “profit[ed] from exploitation of the copyrighted
material without paying the customary price.”  Harper, 471 
U. S., at 562. 

D.  The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used 
The statutory fair-use factors also instruct us to consider
“the amount and substantiality of the portion used in rela-
tion to the copyrighted work as a whole.”  §107(3).  In gen-
eral, the greater the amount of use, the more likely the cop-
ying  is  unfair.  Ibid.  But  even  if  the  copier  takes  only  a 
small  amount,  copying  the  “ ‘heart’ ”  or  “focal  points”  of  a 
work  weighs  against  fair  use,  Harper,  471  U. S.,  at  565– 
566,  unless  “ ‘no  more  was  taken  than  necessary’ ”  for  the 
copier to achieve transformative use, Campbell, 510 U. S., 
at 589. 

—————— 

11 Because the majority’s reasoning would undermine copyright protec-
tion for so many products long understood to be protected, I understand 
the majority’s holding as a good-for-declaring-code-only precedent.