Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 6

6 

ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. 
v. GOLDSMITH 
Syllabus 

needed.  Copying the photograph because doing so was merely helpful
to convey a new meaning or message is not justification enough.  Pp.
28–37. 

(c) Goldsmith’s original works, like those of other photographers, are
entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists.  Such pro-
tection includes the right to prepare derivative works that transform 
the original.  The use of a copyrighted work may nevertheless be fair 
if,  among  other  things,  the  use  has  a  purpose  and  character  that  is 
sufficiently  distinct  from  the  original.   In  this  case,  however,  Gold-
smith’s  photograph  of  Prince,  and  AWF’s  copying  use  of  the  photo-
graph  in  an  image  licensed  to  a  special  edition  magazine  devoted  to 
Prince, share substantially the same commercial purpose.  AWF has 
offered no other persuasive justification for its unauthorized use of the
photograph.  While the Court has cautioned that the four statutory fair
use  factors  may  not  “be  treated  in  isolation,  one  from  another,”  but 
instead all must be “weighed together, in light of the purposes of copy-
right,”  Campbell,  510  U. S.,  at  578,  here  AWF  challenges  only  the 
Court of Appeals’ determinations on the first fair use factor, and the
Court agrees the first factor favors Goldsmith.  P. 38. 

11 F. 4th 26, affirmed. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which  THOMAS, 
ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.  GOR-
SUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which JACKSON, J., joined.  KAGAN, 
J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined.