Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 5

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

5 

Syllabus 

message.”  510 U. S., at 579.  But Campbell cannot be read to mean 
that  §107(1)  weighs  in  favor  of  any  use  that  adds  new  expression, 
meaning, or message.  Otherwise, “transformative use” would swallow 
the copyright owner’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works, as
many derivative works that “recast, transfor[m] or adap[t]” the origi-
nal, §101, add new expression of some kind.  The meaning of a second-
ary work, as reasonably can be perceived, should be considered to the 
extent necessary to determine whether the purpose of the use is dis-
tinct from the original.  For example, the Court in Campbell considered 
the messages of 2 Live Crew’s song to determine whether the song had
a parodic purpose.  But fair use is an objective inquiry into what a user 
does with an original work, not an inquiry into the subjective intent of 
the user, or into the meaning or impression that an art critic or judge 
draws from a work. 

Even  granting  the  District  Court’s  conclusion  that  Orange  Prince 
reasonably can be perceived to portray Prince as iconic, whereas Gold-
smith’s portrayal is photorealistic, that difference must be evaluated
in the context of the specific use at issue.  The purpose of AWF’s recent 
commercial  licensing  of  Orange  Prince  was  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  differ-
ently 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 and commercial nature of the 
use.  To hold otherwise might authorize a range of commercial copying 
of photographs to be used for purposes that are substantially the same
as those of the originals.

AWF asserts another related purpose of Orange Prince, which is to
comment on the “dehumanizing nature” and “effects” of celebrity.  No 
doubt, many of Warhol’s works, and particularly his uses of repeated 
images, can be perceived as depicting celebrities as commodities.  But 
even if such commentary is perceptible on the cover of Condé Nast’s 
tribute to “Prince Rogers Nelson, 1958–2016,” on the occasion of the 
man’s death, the asserted commentary is at Campbell’s lowest ebb: It 
“has no critical bearing on” Goldsmith’s photograph, thus the commen-
tary’s “claim to fairness in borrowing from” her work “diminishes ac-
cordingly  (if  it  does  not  vanish).”  Campbell,  510  U. S.,  at  580.    The 
commercial nature of the use, on the other hand, “loom[s] larger.”  Ibid. 
Like satire that does not target an original work, AWF’s asserted com-
mentary “can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for
the very act of borrowing.”  Id., at 581.  Moreover, because AWF’s copy-
ing of Goldsmith’s photograph was for a commercial use so similar to 
the photograph’s typical use, a particularly compelling justification is