Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 54

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

3 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

not  matter  how  different  the  Warhol  is  from  the  original
photo—how much “new expression, meaning, or message”
he  added.  It  does  not  matter  that  the  silkscreen  and  the 
photo do not have the same aesthetic characteristics and do
not convey the same meaning.  It does not matter that be-
cause  of  those  dissimilarities,  the magazine  publisher  did 
not view the one as a substitute for the other.  All that mat-
ters is that Warhol and the publisher entered into a licens-
ing transaction, similar to one Goldsmith might have done. 
Because the artist had such a commercial purpose, all the
creativity in the world could not save him. 

That  doctrinal  shift  ill  serves  copyright’s  core  purpose.
The law does not grant artists (and authors and composers
and so on) exclusive rights—that is, monopolies—for their 
own sake.  It does so to foster creativity—“[t]o promote the 
[p]rogress” of both arts and science.  U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, 
cl. 8.  And for that same reason, the law also protects the
fair  use  of  copyrighted  material.  Both  Congress  and  the 
courts have long recognized that an overly stringent copy-
right regime actually “stifle[s]” creativity by preventing art-
ists from building on the work of others.  Stewart v. Abend, 
495 U. S. 207, 236 (1990) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted); see Campbell, 510 U. S., at 578–579.  For, let’s be hon-
est,  artists  don’t  create  all  on  their  own;  they  cannot  do 
what they do without borrowing from or otherwise making 
use  of  the  work  of  others.    That  is  the  way  artistry  of  all 
kinds—visual, musical, literary—happens (as it is the way 
knowledge and invention generally develop).  The fair-use 
test’s first factor responds to that truth: As understood in
our  precedent,  it  provides  “breathing  space”  for  artists  to 
use existing materials to make fundamentally new works,
for the public’s enjoyment and benefit.  Id., at 579.  In now 
remaking  that  factor,  and  thus  constricting  fair  use’s 
boundaries,  the  majority  hampers  creative  progress  and