Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 65

14  ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. 

v. GOLDSMITH 
KAGAN, J., dissenting 

in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new in-
sights.”  Id., at 1111.  That is hardly the end of the fair-use
inquiry  (commercialism,  too,  may  bear  on  the  first  factor,
and  anyway  there  are  three  factors  to  go),  but  it  matters
profoundly.  Because when a transformation of the original
work has occurred, the user of the work has made the kind 
of creative contribution that copyright law has as its object. 
Don’t take it from me (or Judge Leval): The above is ex-
actly what this Court has held about how to apply factor 1.
In Campbell, our primary case on the topic, we stated that
the  first  factor’s  purpose-and-character  test  “central[ly]” 
concerns  “whether  and  to  what  extent  the  new  work  is 
‘transformative.’ ”  510 U. S., at 579 (quoting Leval 1111). 
That makes sense, we explained, because “the goal of copy-
right,  to  promote  science  and  the  arts,  is  generally  fur-
thered by the creation of transformative works.”  510 U. S., 
at 579.  We then expounded on when such a transformation 
happens.  Harking back to Justice Story, we explained that 
a “new work” might “merely ‘supersede[ ] the objects’ of the
original creation”—meaning, that it does no more, and for 
no other end, than the first work had.  Ibid. (quoting Folsom 
v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342, 348 (No. 4,901) (CC Mass. 1841)).
But  alternatively,  the  new  work  could  “add[ ]  something 
new, with a further purpose or different character, altering
the first with new expression, meaning, or message.”  510 
U. S., at 579.  Forgive me, but given the majority’s stance 
(see, e.g., ante, at 33), that bears repeating: The critical fac-
tor 1 inquiry, we held, is whether a new work alters the first 
with “new expression, meaning, or message.”  The more it 
does so, the more transformative the new work.  And (here
is  the  final  takeaway)  “the  more  transformative  the  new 
work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like
commercialism,  that  may  weigh  against  a  finding  of  fair 
use.”  510 U. S., at 579.  Under that approach, the Campbell 
Court  held,  the  rap  group  2  Live  Crew’s  “transformative” 
copying of Roy Orbison’s “Pretty Woman” counted in favor