Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 42

36  ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. 

v. GOLDSMITH 
Opinion of the Court 

3 
The  dissent  would  rather  not  debate  these  finer  points.
See post, at 4, n. 2 (opinion of KAGAN, J.).  It offers no theory
of the relationship between transformative uses of original 
works  and  derivative  works  that  transform  originals.    No 
reason why AWF was justified in using Goldsmith’s original
work in this specific instance.  And no limiting principle for 
its apparent position that any use that is creative prevails 
under the first fair use factor.  Instead, the dissent makes 
the simple (and obvious) point that restrictions on copying 
can  inhibit  follow-on  works.  “ ‘Nothing  comes  from  noth-
ing,’ ” the dissent observes, “ ‘nothing ever could.’ ”  Post, at 
11.  So somewhere in the copyright statute, there must be
an “escape valve” to create something good.  Post, at 12.  If 
AWF must pay Goldsmith to use her creation, the dissent 
claims, this will “stifle creativity of every sort,” “thwart the 
expression  of  new  ideas  and  the  attainment  of  new
knowledge,” and “make our world poorer.”  Post, at 36. 

These claims will not age well.  It will not impoverish our
world  to  require  AWF  to  pay  Goldsmith  a  fraction  of  the 
proceeds  from  its  reuse  of  her  copyrighted  work.    Recall, 
payments like these are incentives for artists to create orig-
inal works in the first place.  Nor will the Court’s decision, 
which is consistent with longstanding principles of fair use, 
snuff out the light of Western civilization, returning us to
the Dark Ages of a world without Titian, Shakespeare, or 
Richard Rodgers.  The dissent goes on at length about the
basic premise that copyright (like other forms of intellectual
property)  involves  a  tradeoff  between  stimulating  innova-
tive activity, on the one hand, and allowing follow-on inno-
vation, on the other.  See post, at 11–12, and n. 4, 24–35. 
This theme will be familiar to any student of copyright law. 
In tracing the history of Renaissance painting, however, the 
dissent loses sight of the statute and this Court’s cases.  The 
Lives of the Artists undoubtedly makes for livelier reading