Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

10  ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. 

v. GOLDSMITH 
Opinion of the Court 

iconic,  larger-than-life  figure,”  such  that  “each  Prince  Se-
ries work is immediately recognizable as a ‘Warhol’ rather
than as a photograph of Prince.”  Id., at 326.  Although the
second factor, the nature of Goldsmith’s copyrighted work 
(creative  and  unpublished),  “would  ordinarily  weigh  in
[her] favor . . . , this factor [was] of limited importance be-
cause the Prince Series works are transformative.”  Id., at 
327.  The third factor, the amount and substantiality of the 
portion  used  in  relation  to  the  copyrighted  work,  favored 
AWF because, according to the District Court, “Warhol re-
moved nearly all the photograph’s protectible elements in
creating the Prince Series.”  Id., at 330.  Finally, the fourth
factor  likewise  favored  AWF  because  “the  Prince  Series 
works  are  not  market  substitutes  that  have  harmed—or 
have the potential to harm—Goldsmith.”  Id., at 331. 

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and
remanded.  11 F. 4th 26, 54 (2021).  It held that all four fair 
use factors favored Goldsmith.  On the first factor, “the pur-
pose and character of the use,” §107(1), the Court of Appeals 
rejected  the  notion  that  “any  secondary  work  that  adds  a 
new  aesthetic  or  new  expression  to  its  source  material  is 
necessarily  transformative.”    Id.,  at  38–39.  The  question
was,  instead,  “whether  the  secondary  work’s  use  of  its 
source  material  is  in  service  of  a  fundamentally  different 
and new artistic purpose and character.”  Id., at 42 (internal
quotation  marks  omitted).    Such  “transformative  purpose
and character must, at bare minimum, comprise something 
more than the imposition of another artist’s style on the pri-
mary work.”  Ibid.  Here, however, “the overarching purpose
and function of the two works at issue . . . is identical, not 
merely in the broad sense that they are created as works of 
visual art, but also in the narrow but essential sense that 
they are portraits of the same person.”  Ibid. (footnote omit-
ted).  The Court of Appeals also rejected the District Court’s 
logic that “ ‘each Prince Series work’ ” is transformative be-
cause  it  “ ‘is  immediately  recognizable  as  a  “Warhol,” ’ ”