Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 85

34  ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. 

v. GOLDSMITH 
KAGAN, J., dissenting 

majority’s  reasoning,  someone  in  the  market  for  a  papal 
portrait  could  use  either  one,  see  ante,  at  22–23.  Veláz-
quez’s portrait, although Bacon’s model, is not “the object of 
[his]  commentary.”  Ante,  at  27;  see  A.  Zweite,  Bacon’s 
Scream, in Francis Bacon: The Violence of the Real 71 (A.
Zweite ed. 2006) (Bacon “was not seeking to expose Veláz-
quez’s masterpiece,” but instead to “adapt it” and “give it a
new meaning”).  And absent that “target[ing],” the majority
thinks the portraits’ distinct messages make no difference. 
Ante, at 27.  Recall how the majority deems irrelevant the
District Court’s view that the Goldsmith Prince is vulnera-
ble, the Warhol Prince iconic.  Too small a “degree of differ-
ence,” according to the majority.  Ante, at 33–34; see supra, 
at  17.  So  too  here,  presumably:  the  stolid  Pope,  the  dis-
turbed  Pope—it  just  doesn’t  matter.  But  that  once  again
misses what a copier accomplished: the making of a wholly 
new piece of art from an existing one. 

The majority thus treats creativity as a trifling part of the 
fair-use inquiry, in disregard of settled copyright principles
and  what  they  reflect  about  the  artistic  process.    On  the 
majority’s  view, an artist had best not attempt to market
even  a  transformative  follow-on  work—one  that  adds  sig-
nificant new expression, meaning, or message.  That added 
value (unless it comes from critiquing the original) will no
longer  receive  credit  under  factor  1.    And  so  it  can  never 
hope  to  outweigh  factor  4’s  assessment  of  the  copyright
holder’s interests.  The result will be what this Court has 
often  warned  against:  suppression  of  “the  very  creativity
which [copyright] law is designed to foster.”  Stewart, 495 
U. S., at 236; see supra, at 11–12.  And not just on the mar-
gins.  Creative  progress  unfolds  through  use  and  reuse, 
framing and reframing: One work builds on what has gone 
before; and later works build on that one; and so on through 
time.  Congress grasped the idea when it directed courts to
attend  to  the  “purpose  and  character”  of  artistic  borrow-