Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 32

26  ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. 

v. GOLDSMITH 
Opinion of the Court 

uses.  In  Google,  the  Court  suggested  that  “[a]n  ‘artistic
painting’  might,  for  example,  fall  within  the  scope  of  fair 
use even though it precisely replicates a copyrighted ‘adver-
tising logo to make a comment about consumerism.’ ”  593 
U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 24–25) (quoting 4 M. Nimmer 
&  D.  Nimmer,  Copyright  §13.05[A][1][b]  (2019),  in  turn
quoting N. Netanel, Making Sense of Fair Use, 15 Lewis & 
Clark  L. Rev.  715,  746  (2011)  (some  internal  quotation 
marks omitted)).  That suggestion refers to Warhol’s works
that incorporate advertising logos, such as the Campbell’s
Soup Cans series.  See fig. 7, infra. 

Yet not all of Warhol’s works, nor all uses of them, give
rise to the same fair use analysis.  In fact, Soup Cans well 
illustrates  the  distinction  drawn  here.  The  purpose  of 
Campbell’s logo is to advertise soup.  Warhol’s canvases do 

Figure  7.  A  print  based  on  the  Campbell’s  soup  can,  one  of 
Warhol’s works that replicates a copyrighted advertising logo.