Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 68

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

17 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

ther discussed below), that fact is nothing near the show-
stopper  the  majority  claims.    Remember,  the  more  trans-
formative the work, the less commercialism matters.  See 
Campbell,  510 U. S., at 579; supra, at 14;  ante, at 18 (ac-
knowledging  the  point,  even  while  refusing  to  give  it  any 
meaning).  The  dazzling  creativity  evident  in  the  Prince 
portrait might not get Warhol all the way home in the fair-
use inquiry; there remain other factors to be considered and 
possibly weighed against the first one.  See supra, at 2, 10, 
14.  But the “purpose and character of [Warhol’s] use” of the 
copyrighted work—what he did to the Goldsmith photo, in 
service of what objects—counts powerfully in his favor.  He 
started with an old photo, but he created a new new thing.6 

II 

The majority does not see it.  And I mean that literally. 
There is precious little evidence in today’s opinion that the 
majority  has  actually  looked  at  these  images,  much  less 
that  it  has  engaged  with  expert  views  of  their  aesthetics 
and meaning.  Whatever new expression Warhol added, the 
majority says, was not transformative.  See ante, at 25.  Ap-
parently, Warhol made only “modest alterations.”  Ante, at 
33.  Anyone, the majority suggests, could have “crop[ped],
flatten[ed], trace[d], and color[ed] the photo” as Warhol did. 
Ante, at 8.  True, Warhol portrayed Prince “somewhat dif-
ferently.”  Ante, at 33.  But the “degree of difference” is too
small: It consists merely in applying Warhol’s “characteris-
tic  style”—an  aesthetic  gloss,  if  you  will—“to  bring  out  a 
particular meaning” that was already “available in [Gold-
smith’s] photograph.”  Ibid.  So too, Warhol’s commentary 
on celebrity culture matters not at all; the majority is not
willing to concede that it even exists.  See ante, at 34 (“even 

—————— 

6 I  have  to  admit,  I  stole  that  last  phrase  from  Michael  Lewis’s  The 
New New  Thing:  A  Silicon  Valley  Story  (2014).    I  read  the  book  some 
time ago, and the phrase stuck with me (as phrases often do).  I wouldn’t 
have thought of it on my own.