Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. 
v. GOLDSMITH 
Syllabus 

has a further purpose or different character.  Second, the first factor 
relates to the justification for the use.  In a broad sense, a use that has 
a distinct purpose is justified because it furthers the goal of copyright,
namely,  to  promote  the  progress  of  science  and  the  arts,  without  di-
minishing the incentive to create.  In a narrower sense, a use may be 
justified because copying is reasonably necessary to achieve the user’s 
new  purpose.    Parody,  for  example,  “needs  to  mimic  an  original  to 
make its point.”  Id., at 580–581.  Similarly, other commentary or crit-
icism  that  targets  an  original  work  may  have  compelling  reason  to 
“conjure up” the original by borrowing from it.  Id., at 588.  An inde-
pendent justification like this is particularly relevant to assessing fair
use where an original work and copying use share the same or highly 
similar  purposes,  or  where  wide  dissemination  of  a  secondary  work 
would otherwise run the risk of substitution for the original or licensed
derivatives of it.  See, e.g., Google, 593 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26).

In  sum,  if  an  original  work  and  secondary  use  share  the  same  or
highly similar purposes, and the secondary use is commercial, the first 
fair  use  factor  is  likely  to  weigh against  fair  use,  absent  some  other 
justification for copying.  Pp. 13–20. 

(2) The  fair  use  provision,  and  the  first  factor  in  particular,  re-
quires an analysis of the specific “use” of a copyrighted work that is 
alleged to be “an infringement.”  §107.  The same copying may be fair
when used for one purpose but not another.  See Campbell, 510 U. S., 
at 585.  Here, Goldsmith’s copyrighted photograph has been used in 
multiple ways.  The Court limits its analysis to the specific use alleged
to be infringing in this case—AWF’s commercial licensing of Orange 
Prince  to  Condé  Nast—and  expresses  no  opinion  as  to  the  creation, 
display, or sale of the original Prince Series works.  In the context of 
Condé  Nast’s  special  edition  magazine  commemorating  Prince,  the 
purpose of the Orange Prince image is substantially the same as that
of Goldsmith’s original photograph.  Both are portraits of Prince used 
in  magazines  to  illustrate  stories  about  Prince.    The  use  also  is  of  a 
commercial  nature.    Taken  together,  these  two  elements  counsel 
against fair use here.  Although a use’s transformativeness may out-
weigh  its  commercial  character,  in  this  case  both  point  in  the  same 
direction.  That does not mean that all of Warhol’s derivative works, 
nor all uses of them, give rise to the same fair use analysis.  Pp. 20–
27. 

(b) AWF contends that the purpose and character of its use of Gold-
smith’s photograph weighs in favor of fair use because Warhol’s silk-
screen image of the photograph has a different meaning or message. 
By adding new expression to the photograph, AWF says, Warhol made
transformative use of it.  Campbell did describe a transformative use 
as one that “alter[s] the first [work] with new expression, meaning, or