Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 19

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

use.”  Google believes that it was. 

A holding for Google on either question presented would 
dispense with Oracle’s copyright claims.  Given the rapidly
changing technological, economic, and business-related cir-
cumstances, we believe we should not answer more than is 
necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute.  We shall assume, 
but  purely  for  argument’s  sake,  that  the  entire  Sun  Java 
API  falls  within  the  definition  of  that  which  can  be  copy-
righted.  We shall ask instead whether Google’s use of part 
of that API was a “fair use.”  Unlike the Federal Circuit, we 
conclude that it was. 

IV 
The language of §107, the “fair use” provision, reflects its
judge-made  origins.    It  is  similar  to  that  used  by  Justice 
Story in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342, 348 (No. 4,901) (CC
Mass. 1841).  See Campbell, 510 U. S., at 576 (noting how 
“Justice Story’s summary [of fair use considerations] is dis-
cernable”  in  §107).  That  background,  as  well  as  modern 
courts’ use of the doctrine, makes clear that the concept is
flexible, that courts must apply it in light of the sometimes 
conflicting  aims  of  copyright  law,  and  that  its  application 
may well vary depending upon context.  Thus, copyright’s 
protection may be stronger where the copyrighted material
is fiction, not fact, where it consists of a motion picture ra-
ther than a news broadcast, or where it serves an artistic 
rather than a utilitarian function.  See,  e.g., Stewart, 495 
U. S., at 237–238; Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 563; see also 
4  M.  Nimmer  &  D.  Nimmer,  Copyright  §13.05[A]
[2][a]  (2019)  (hereinafter  Nimmer  on  Copyright)  (“[C]opy-
right protection is narrower, and the corresponding appli-
cation of the fair use defense greater, in the case of factual 
works than in the case of works of fiction or fantasy”).  Sim-
ilarly,  courts  have  held  that  in  some  circumstances,  say,
where  copyrightable  material  is  bound  up  with  uncopy-
rightable material, copyright protection is “thin.”  See Feist,