Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 44.0

38  ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. 

v. GOLDSMITH 
Opinion of the Court 

III 
Lynn Goldsmith’s original works, like those of other pho-
tographers,  are  entitled  to  copyright  protection,  even 
against famous artists.  Such protection includes the right 
to  prepare  derivative  works  that  transform  the  original.
The use of a copyrighted work may nevertheless be fair if,
among  other  things,  the  use  has  a  purpose  and  character 
that is sufficiently distinct from the original.  In this case, 
however,  Goldsmith’s  original  photograph  of  Prince,  and 
AWF’s copying use of that photograph in an image licensed
to a special edition magazine devoted to Prince, share sub-
stantially the same purpose, and the use is of a commercial 
nature.  AWF has offered no other persuasive justification 
for its unauthorized use of the photograph.  Therefore, the 
“purpose and character of the use, including whether such
use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational 
purposes,” §107(1), weighs in Goldsmith’s favor.

The Court has cautioned that the four statutory fair use 
factors may not “be treated in isolation, one from another. 
All are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in 
light of the purposes of copyright.”  Campbell, 510 U. S., at 
578.  AWF does not challenge the Court of Appeals’ deter-
minations that the second factor, “the nature of the copy-
righted work,” §107(2); third factor, “the amount and sub-
stantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole,” §107(3); and fourth factor, “the effect of 
the use upon the potential market for or value of the copy-
righted work,” all favor Goldsmith.  See 11 F. 4th, at 45–51. 
Because this Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that
the  first  factor  likewise  favors  her,  the  judgment  of  the 
Court of Appeals is 

Affirmed.