Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR THE VISUAL 
ARTS, INC. v. GOLDSMITH ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

No. 21–869.  Argued October 12, 2022—Decided May 18, 2023 

In  2016,  petitioner  Andy  Warhol  Foundation  for  the  Visual  Arts,  Inc.
(AWF)  licensed  to  Condé  Nast  for  $10,000  an  image  of  “Orange 
Prince”—an orange silkscreen portrait of the musician Prince created 
by pop artist Andy Warhol—to appear on the cover of a magazine com-
memorating Prince.  Orange Prince is one of 16 works now known as 
the Prince Series that Warhol derived from a copyrighted photograph 
taken in 1981 by respondent Lynn Goldsmith, a professional photog-
rapher.  Goldsmith had been commissioned by Newsweek in 1981 to
photograph  a  then  “up  and  coming”  musician  named  Prince  Rogers
Nelson,  after  which  Newsweek  published  one  of  Goldsmith’s  photos 
along with an article about Prince.  Years later, Goldsmith granted a 
limited license to Vanity Fair for use of one of her Prince photos as an 
“artist reference for an illustration.”  The terms of the license included 
that the use would be for “one time” only.  Vanity Fair hired Warhol to 
create the illustration, and Warhol used Goldsmith’s photo to create a
purple  silkscreen  portrait  of  Prince,  which  appeared  with  an  article 
about  Prince  in  Vanity  Fair’s  November  1984  issue.    The  magazine
credited Goldsmith for the “source photograph” and paid her $400.  Af-
ter  Prince  died  in  2016,  Vanity  Fair’s  parent  company  (Condé  Nast) 
asked  AWF  about  reusing  the  1984  Vanity  Fair  image  for  a  special 
edition magazine that would commemorate Prince.  When Condé Nast 
learned about the other Prince Series images, it opted instead to pur-
chase  a  license  from  AWF  to  publish  Orange  Prince.   Goldsmith  did 
not  know  about  the  Prince  Series  until  2016,  when  she  saw  Orange 
Prince  on  the  cover  of  Condé  Nast’s  magazine.    Goldsmith  notified 
AWF of her belief that it had infringed her copyright.  AWF then sued 
Goldsmith  for  a  declaratory  judgment  of  noninfringement  or,  in  the