Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

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

33 

Opinion of the Court 

‘recogniz[e] any alteration as transformative.’ ”  Ibid. (quot-
ing 4 Nimmer, Copyright §13.05[B][6]).  Whether the pur-
pose and character of a use weighs in favor of fair use is,
instead, an objective inquiry into what use was made, i.e., 
what the user does with the original work. 

Granting  the  District  Court’s  conclusion  that  Orange 
Prince  reasonably  can  be  perceived  to  portray  Prince  as 
iconic, whereas Goldsmith’s portrayal is photorealistic, that
difference must be evaluated in the context of the specific 
use at issue.  The use is AWF’s commercial licensing of Or-
ange Prince to appear on the cover of Condé Nast’s special 
commemorative edition.  The purpose of that use is, still, to
illustrate a magazine about Prince with a portrait of Prince. 
Although the purpose could be more specifically described
as illustrating a magazine about Prince with a portrait of
Prince, one that portrays Prince somewhat differently from
Goldsmith’s photograph (yet has no critical bearing on her
photograph), that degree of difference is not enough for the
first factor to favor AWF, given the specific context of the 
use. 

To hold otherwise would potentially authorize a range of 
commercial copying of photographs, to be used for purposes 
that are substantially the same as those of the originals.  As 
long as the user somehow portrays the subject of the photo-
graph differently, he could make modest alterations to the
original, sell it to an outlet to accompany a story about the 
subject, and claim transformative use.  Many photographs 
will be open to various interpretations.  A subject as open 
to interpretation as the human face, for example, reasona-
bly  can  be  perceived  as  conveying  several  possible  mean-
ings.  The  application  of  an  artist’s  characteristic  style  to 
bring  out  a  particular  meaning  that  was  available  in  the 
photograph is less likely to constitute a “further purpose” 
as Campbell used the term.  510 U. S., at 579.