Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 74.0

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

23 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

dismiss  all  the  newness  Warhol  added  just  because  he  li-
censed his portrait to Condé Nast?  And why does the ma-
jority  insist  more  generally  that  in  a  commercial  context 
“convey[ing] a new meaning or message” is “not enough for 
the first factor to favor fair use”?  Ante, at 35. 

Certainly not because of our precedent—which conflicts 
with nearly all the majority says.  As explained earlier, this 
Court has decided two important cases about factor 1.  See 
supra, at 14–16.  In each, the copier had built on the origi-
nal  to  make  a  product  for  sale—so  the  use  was  patently
commercial.  And in each, that fact made no difference, be-
cause the use was also transformative.  The copier, we held,
had  made  a  significant  creative  contribution—had  added 
real value.  So in Campbell, we did not ask whether 2 Live 
Crew and Roy Orbison both meant to make money by “in-
cluding a catchy song about women on a record album.”  But 
cf. ante, at 12–13 (asking whether Warhol and Goldsmith
both  meant  to  charge  for  “depict[ing]  Prince  in  magazine 
stories  about  Prince”).    We  instead  asked  whether  2  Live 
Crew  had  added  significant  “new  expression,  meaning, 
[and] message”; and because we answered yes, we held that
the group’s rap song did not “merely supersede the objects 
of the original creation.”  510 U. S., at 579 (internal quota-
tion  marks  and  alteration  omitted).  Similarly,  in  Google, 
we took for granted that Google (the copier) and Sun (the 
original author) both meant to market software platforms 
facilitating  the  same  tasks—just  as  (in  the  majority’s  re-
frain) Warhol and Goldsmith both wanted to market images
depicting the same subject.  See 593 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip 
op., at 25, 27).  “So what?” was our basic response.  Google’s
copying had enabled the company to make a “highly crea-
tive and innovative tool,” advancing “creative progress” and
thus  serving  “the  basic  constitutional  objective  of  copy-
right.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 25) (internal quotation marks 
omitted).  Search today’s opinion high and low, you will see