Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

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

23 

Opinion of the Court 

in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince.11  Such “en-
vironment[s]” are not “distinct and different.”  Google, 593 

—————— 

11 The Court of Appeals observed that the “purpose and function of the 
two works at issue here is identical, not merely in the broad sense that
they are created as works of visual art, but also in the narrow but essen-
tial sense that they are portraits of the same person.”  11 F. 4th, at 42 
(footnote omitted).  This Court goes somewhat “further and examine[s]
the  copying’s more  specifically  described  ‘purpose[s]’ ”  in  the  context of
the particular use at issue (here, in a magazine about Prince).  Google, 
593 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 25).  The Court does not define the purpose
as simply “commercial” or “commercial licensing.”  Post, at 18, 20, n. 7, 
25,  n. 8  (KAGAN,  J.,  dissenting).    Nor  does  the  Court  view  Goldsmith’s 
photograph and Warhol’s illustration as “fungible products in the maga-
zine market.”  Post, at 18; see post, at 10.  Rather, the Court finds signif-
icant the degree of similarity between the specific purposes of the origi-
nal work and the secondary use at issue.

According to the dissent, the fact that a magazine editor might prefer 
one image to the other must mean the secondary use is transformative, 
either because it has a different aesthetic or conveys a different message. 
Post, at 10.  The Court, because it fails to understand the difference, does 
not have “much of a future in magazine publishing,” the dissent chides. 
Ibid.  While  the  dissent  is  probably  correct  about  the  Court’s  business 
prospects, the editors of People, Rolling Stone, and Time chose a variety 
of different photos of Prince for their memorial issues.  See fig. 5, supra. 
Portrait photos, in fact.  Some black and white; some depicting Prince’s 
“ ‘corporeality’ ”; some “realistic” or “humanistic.”  Post, at 9, 16 (KAGAN, 
J.,  dissenting).  These  variations  in  aesthetics  did  not  stop  the  photos 
from serving the same essential purpose of depicting Prince in a maga-
zine commemorating his life and career. 

Fortunately, the dissent’s “magazine editor” test does not have much 
of a future in fair use doctrine.  The flaw in the dissent’s logic is simple: 
If  all  that  mattered  under  the  first  factor  were  whether  a  buyer  was 
“drawn  aesthetically”  to  a  secondary  work  (instead  of  the  pre-existing 
work it adapted) or whether the buyer preferred “to convey the message
of ”  the  secondary  work,  post,  at  10,  then  every  derivative  work  would 
qualify.  The New Yorker might prefer an unauthorized sequel to a short
story, rather than the original, but that does not mean the purpose and 
character of the use would weigh in its favor.  Similarly, a rap label might
prefer 2 Live Crew’s song, rather than Orbison’s original, based on the 
new sound and lyrics (i.e., new aesthetic and message), but that was not 
enough in Campbell, and it is not enough here.