Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 50

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

5 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

build on classic literary themes?  Post, at 25–35 (KAGAN, J., 
dissenting).  Worry  not.  This  case  does  not  call  on  us  to 
strike a balance between rewarding creators and enabling 
others to build on their work.  That is Congress’s job.  See 
U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8.  Nor does this case even call on 
us to interpret and apply many of the reticulated elements 
of the Copyright Act that Congress has adopted to balance 
these competing interests.  Our only job today is to interpret
and apply faithfully one statutory factor among many Con-
gress has deemed relevant to the affirmative defense of fair 
use. 

That observation points the way to another.  The Court 
today does not even decide whether the Foundation’s image 
of Prince infringes on Ms. Goldsmith’s copyright.  To uphold
a  claim  of  infringement  under  the  Copyright  Act,  a  court
must find the defendant copied elements of the plaintiff ’s 
work that are themselves original.  Feist Publications, Inc. 
v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U. S. 340, 361 (1991).
As part of this process, a court must isolate and vindicate
only the truly original elements of a copyrighted work.  See 
2 Nimmer on Copyright §8.01[D] (2022).  The plaintiff must 
usually show not only a similarity but a “substantial” simi-
larity between the allegedly infringing work and the origi-
nal elements of his own copyrighted work.  See 4 Nimmer 
on Copyright §13.03[A] (2023).  And even when two works 
are substantially similar, if both the plaintiff ’s and the de-
fendant’s works copy from a third source (reworking, say, a 
traditional artistic or literary theme), a claim for infringe-
ment generally will not succeed.  See 2 Nimmer on Copy-
right §8.01[C].  In this case, we address none of these ques-
tions  or  other  elements  of  the  infringement  standard 
designed  to  ensure  room  for  later  artists  to  build  on  the 
work  of  their  predecessors.    The  district  court  concluded 
that it “need not address” the merits of Ms. Goldsmith’s in-
fringement claim because the Foundation could prevail at
summary  judgment  on  its  affirmative  defense  of  fair  use.