Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 55.0

4 

ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. 
v. GOLDSMITH 
KAGAN, J., dissenting 

undermines creative freedom.  I respectfully dissent.2 

I 
A 

Andy Warhol is the avatar of transformative copying.  Cf. 
Google, 593 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 24–25) (selecting
Warhol,  from  the  universe  of  creators,  to  illustrate  what 
transformative  copying  is).  In  his  early  career,  Warhol 
worked as a commercial illustrator and became experienced 
in  varied  techniques  of  reproduction.  By  night,  he  used
those  techniques—in  particular,  the  silkscreen—to  create 
his own art.  His own—even though in one sense not.  The 
silkscreen enabled him to make brilliantly novel art out of
existing  “images  carefully  selected  from  popular  culture.”
D. De Salvo, God Is in the Details, in Andy Warhol Prints
22 (4th rev. ed. 2003).  The works he produced, connecting 
traditions of fine art with mass culture, depended on “ap-
propriation[s]”: The use of “elements of an extant image[ ] 
is Warhol’s entire modus operandi.”  B. Gopnik, Artistic Ap-
propriation vs. Copyright Law, N. Y. Times, Apr. 6, 2021,
p. C4  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).  And  with  that 
m.o.,  he  changed  modern  art;  his  appropriations  and  his
originality were flipsides of each other.  To a public accus-
tomed  to  thinking  of  art  as  formal  works  “belong[ing]  in 

—————— 

2 One preliminary note before beginning in earnest.  As readers are by 
now aware, the majority opinion is trained on this dissent in a way ma-
jority opinions seldom are.  Maybe that makes the majority opinion self-
refuting?  After all, a dissent with “no theory” and “[n]o reason” is not 
one usually thought to merit pages of commentary and fistfuls of come-
back footnotes.  Ante, at 36.  In any event, I’ll not attempt to rebut point 
for point the majority’s varied accusations; instead, I’ll mainly rest on my 
original submission.  I’ll just make two suggestions about reading what 
follows.  First, when you see that my description of a precedent differs 
from  the  majority’s,  go  take  a  look  at  the  decision.    Second,  when  you 
come across an argument that you recall the majority took issue with, go
back to its response and ask yourself about the ratio of reasoning to ipse 
dixit.  With those two recommendations, I’ll take my chances on readers’
good judgment.