Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 67

16  ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. 

v. GOLDSMITH 
KAGAN, J., dissenting 

at 36) that a follow-on creator should just pay a licensing
fee for its use of an original work.  But sometimes copyright
holders charge an out-of-range price for licenses.  And other 
times they just say no.  In Campbell, for example, Orbison’s
successor-in-interest turned down 2 Live Crew’s request for 
a  license,  hoping  to  block  the  rap  take-off  of  the  original 
song.  See 510 U. S., at 572–573.  And in Google, the parties
could not agree on licensing terms, as Sun insisted on con-
ditions that Google thought would have subverted its busi-
ness model.  See 593 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3).  So without 
fair use, 2 Live Crew’s and Google’s works—however new
and important—might never have been made or, if made,
never have reached the public.  The prospect of that loss to 
“creative progress” is what lay behind the Court’s inquiry 
into transformativeness—into the expressive novelty of the
follow-on  work  (regardless  whether  the  original  creator 
granted permission).  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 25); see Camp-
bell, 510 U. S., at 579. 

Now recall all the ways Warhol, in making a Prince por-
trait  from  the  Goldsmith  photo,  “add[ed]  something  new, 
with a further purpose or different character”—all the ways
he  “alter[ed]  the  [original  work’s]  expression,  meaning, 
[and] message.”  Ibid.  The differences in form and appear-
ance,  relating  to  “composition,  presentation, color  palette, 
and media.”  1 App. 227; see supra, at 7–10.  The differences 
in  meaning  that  arose  from  replacing  a  realistic—and  in-
deed  humanistic—depiction  of  the  performer  with  an  un-
natural, disembodied, masklike one.  See ibid.  The convey-
ance  of  new  messages  about  celebrity  culture  and  its
personal and societal impacts.  See ibid.  The presence of, 
in a word, “transformation”—the kind of creative building 
that copyright exists to encourage.  Warhol’s use, to be sure, 
had a commercial aspect.  Like most artists, Warhol did not 
want to hide his works in a garret; he wanted to sell them.
But as Campbell and Google both demonstrate (and as fur-