Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

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

27 

Opinion of the Court 

not share that purpose.  Rather, the Soup Cans series uses 
Campbell’s copyrighted work for an artistic commentary on
consumerism,  a  purpose  that  is  orthogonal  to  advertising 
soup.  The use therefore does not supersede the objects of
the advertising logo.15 

Moreover,  a  further  justification  for  Warhol’s  use  of
Campbell’s logo is apparent.  His Soup Cans series targets 
the logo.  That is, the original copyrighted work is, at least 
in part, the object of Warhol’s commentary.  It is the very
nature of Campbell’s copyrighted logo—well known to the 
public, designed to be reproduced, and a symbol of an every- 
day item for mass consumption—that enables the commen-
tary.  Hence, the use of the copyrighted work not only serves 
a  completely  different  purpose,  to  comment  on  consumer-
ism rather than to advertise soup, it also “conjures up” the 
original  work  to  “she[d]  light”  on  the  work  itself,  not  just 
the subject of the work.  Campbell, 510 U. S., at 579, 588.16 
Here,  by  contrast,  AWF’s  use  of  Goldsmith’s  photograph
does  not  target  the  photograph,  nor  has  AWF  offered  an-
other compelling justification for the use.  See infra, at 34– 
35, and nn. 20–21. 

—————— 

15 The situation might be different if AWF licensed Warhol’s Soup Cans 
to a soup business to serve as its logo.  That use would share much the 
same purpose of Campbell’s logo, even though Soup Cans has some new
meaning  or  message.    This hypothetical,  though  fanciful,  is  parallel  to 
the  situation  here:  Both  Goldsmith  and  AWF  sold  images  of  Prince
(AWF’s copying Goldsmith’s) to magazines to illustrate stories about the
celebrity, which is the typical use made of Goldsmith’s photographs. 

16 The dissent either does not follow, or chooses to ignore, this analysis. 
The point is not simply that the Soup Cans series comments on consumer
culture, similar to how Warhol’s celebrity images comment on celebrity 
culture.  Post,  at  15  (opinion  of  KAGAN,  J.).  Rather,  as  the  discussion 
makes clear, the degree of difference in purpose and character between 
Campbell’s  soup  label  and  Warhol’s  painting  is  nearly  absolute.    Plus, 
Warhol’s  use  targets  Campbell’s  logo,  at  least  in  part.    These  features 
(which are absent in this case) strengthen Warhol’s claim to fairness in 
copying that logo in a painting.