Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 51

6 

ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. 
v. GOLDSMITH 
GORSUCH, J., concurring 

382 F. Supp. 3d 312, 324 (SDNY 2019).  The Second Circuit 
reversed, focused primarily on the district court’s “applica-
tion of the four fair-use factors.”  11 F. 4th 26, 32 (2021); see 
id., at 36–52.  And this Court granted review to decide only 
the question of fair use and only the role of a single factor 
in that affirmative defense.  596 U. S. ___ (2022). 

Last but hardly least, while our interpretation of the first
fair-use factor does not favor the Foundation in this case, it 
may in others.  If, for example, the Foundation had sought
to display Mr. Warhol’s image of Prince in a nonprofit mu-
seum or a for-profit book commenting on 20th-century art,
the purpose and character of that use might well point to 
fair use.  But those cases are not this case.  Before us, Ms. 
Goldsmith challenges only the Foundation’s effort to use its
portrait as  a commercial substitute for her own protected
photograph  in  sales  to  magazines  looking  for  images  of 
Prince to accompany articles about the musician.  And our 
only  point  today  is  that,  while  the  Foundation  may  often 
have a fair-use defense for Mr. Warhol’s work, that does not 
mean it always will.  Under the law Congress has given us,
each challenged use must be assessed on its own terms.