Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 70

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

19 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

regardless  how  transformative  his  image  was.    See,  e.g., 
ante,  at  35  (Warhol’s  licensing  “outweigh[s]”  any  “new 
meaning or message” he could have offered).  The majority’s
commercialism-trumps-creativity  analysis  has  only  one 
way out.  If Warhol had used Goldsmith’s photo to comment
on  or  critique  Goldsmith’s  photo,  he  might  have  availed
himself of that factor’s benefit (though why anyone would 
be interested in that work is mysterious).  See ante, at 34. 
But  because  he  instead  commented  on  society—the  dehu-
manizing culture of celebrity—he is (go figure) out of luck.

From top-to-bottom, the analysis fails.  It does not fit the 
copyright statute.  It is not faithful to our precedent.  And 
it does not serve the purpose both Congress and the Court 
have understood to lie at the core of fair use: “stimulat[ing]
creativity,” by enabling artists and writers of every descrip-
tion to build on prior works.  Google, 593 U. S., at ___ (slip 
op., at 24).  That is how art, literature, and music happen;
it is also how all forms of knowledge advance.  Even as the 
majority  misconstrues  the  law,  it  misunderstands—and 
threatens—the creative process.

Start  with  what  the  statute  tells  us  about  whether  the 
factor 1 inquiry should disregard Warhol’s creative contri-
butions because he licensed his work.  (Sneak preview: It 
shouldn’t.)  The majority claims the text as its strong suit,
viewing  our  precedents’  inquiry  into  new  expression  and 
meaning as a faulty “paraphrase” of the statutory language. 
Ante,  at  28–30.    But  it  is  the  majority,  not  Campbell  and 
Google, that misreads §107(1).  First, the key term “charac-
ter” plays little role in the majority’s analysis.  See ante, at 
12–13,  22–23,  and  n. 11,  29  (statements  of  central  test  or 
holding referring only to “purpose”).  And you can see why, 
given the counter-intuitive meaning the majority (every so
often) provides.  See ante, at 24–25, and n. 14.  When refer-
ring  to  the  “character”  of  what  Warhol  did,  the  majority
says merely that he “licensed Orange Prince to Condé Nast
for $10,000.”  See ante, at 24.  But that reductionist view