Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 35

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

29 

Opinion of the Court 

weigh  in  favor  of  a  commercial  remix  of  Prince’s  “Purple 
Rain” just because the remix added new expression or had 
a different aesthetic.  A film or musical adaptation, like that
of Alice Walker’s The Color Purple, might win awards for 
its “significant creative contribution”; alter the meaning of 
a classic novel; and add “important new expression,” such
as images, performances, original music, and lyrics.  Post, 
at 11, 23 (KAGAN, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks 
omitted).  But that does not in itself dispense with the need
for licensing.17 

Campbell is again instructive.  2 Live Crew’s version of 
Orbison’s song easily conveyed a new meaning or message. 
It also had a different aesthetic.  Yet the Court went fur-
ther, examining whether and to what extent 2 Live Crew’s
song had the parodic purpose of “commenting on the origi-
nal or criticizing it.”  510 U. S., at 583.  Parody is, of course, 
a  kind  of  message.    Moreover,  the  Court  considered  what 
the  words  of  the  songs  might  have  meant  to  determine 
whether parody “reasonably could be perceived.”  Ibid.  But 
new meaning or message was not sufficient.  If it had been, 
the Court could have made quick work of the first fair use 
factor.  Instead, meaning or message was simply relevant 
to whether the new use served a purpose distinct from the
original, or instead superseded its objects.  That was, and 
is, the “central” question under the first factor.  Id., at 579. 

—————— 

17 The dissent is stumped.  Buried in a conclusory footnote, it suggests 
that the fourth fair use factor alone takes care of derivative works like 
book-to-film adaptations.  Post, at 12, n. 5.  This idea  appears to come 
from a Hail Mary lobbed by AWF when it got caught in the same bind. 
See Tr. of Oral Arg. 15–16.  The Court is aware of no authority for the 
proposition that the first factor favors such uses (on the dissent’s view, 
the first factor must, because the use modifies the expressive content of 
an original work), leaving it to the fourth factor to ensure that §106(2) is 
not a dead letter.  Certainly Google, which merely noted in passing that 
“[m]aking a film of an author’s book may . . . mean potential or presumed 
losses to the copyright owner,” did not hold as much.  593 U. S., at ___ 
(slip op., at 30); see id., at ___–___, ___–___ (slip op., at 24–28, 30–35).