Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

factor considers the reasons for, and nature of, the copier’s
use of an original work.  The “central” question it asks is
“whether the new work merely ‘supersede[s] the objects’ of
the original creation . . . (‘supplanting’ the original), or in-
stead adds something new, with a further purpose or differ-
ent character.”  Campbell, 510 U. S., at 579 (quoting Folsom 
v.  Marsh,  9  F.  Cas.  342,  348  (No. 4,901)  (CC  Mass.  1841) 
(Story, J.), and Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 562).  In that 
way, the first factor relates to the problem of substitution—
copyright’s  bête  noire.   The  use  of  an  original  work  to 
achieve a purpose that is the same as, or highly similar to,
that of the original work is more likely to substitute for, or
“ ‘supplan[t],’ ” the work, ibid. 

Consider the “purposes” listed in the preamble paragraph
of §107: “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . . , 
scholarship, or research.”  Although the examples given are
“ ‘illustrative and not limitative,’ ” they reflect “the sorts of 
copying  that  courts  and  Congress  most  commonly  ha[ve]
found to be fair uses,” and so may guide the first factor in-
quiry.  Campbell, 510 U. S., at 577–578 (quoting §101).  As 
the Court of Appeals observed, the “examples are easily un-
derstood,” as they contemplate the use of an original work
to  “serv[e]  a  manifestly  different  purpose  from  the  [work] 
itself.”  11 F. 4th, at 37.  Criticism of a work, for instance, 
ordinarily does not supersede the objects of, or supplant, the 
work.  Rather, it uses the work to serve a distinct end.4 

Not every instance will be clear cut, however.  Whether a 
use shares the purpose or character of an original work, or 
instead  has  a  further  purpose  or  different  character,  is  a 
matter of degree.  Most copying has some further purpose, 

—————— 

4 Take a critical book review, for example.  Not only does the review, as
a whole, serve a different purpose than the book; each quoted passage
within the review likely serves a different purpose (as an object of criti-
cism) than it does in the book.  That may not always be so, however, and
a court must consider each use within the whole to determine whether 
the copying is fair.  W. Patry, Fair Use §3:1, pp. 129–130 (2022).