Page:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith.pdf/6

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
6
ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. v. GOLDSMITH

Syllabus

needed. Copying the photograph because doing so was merely helpful to convey a new meaning or message is not justification enough. Pp. 28–37.

(c) Goldsmith’s original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists. Such protection includes the right to prepare derivative works that transform the original. The use of a copyrighted work may nevertheless be fair if, among other things, the use has a purpose and character that is sufficiently distinct from the original. In this case, however, Goldsmith’s photograph of Prince, and AWF’s copying use of the photograph in an image licensed to a special edition magazine devoted to Prince, share substantially the same commercial purpose. AWF has offered no other persuasive justification for its unauthorized use of the photograph. While the Court has cautioned that the four statutory fair use factors may not “be treated in isolation, one from another,” but instead all must be “weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright,” Campbell, 510 U. S., at 578, here AWF challenges only the Court of Appeals’ determinations on the first fair use factor, and the Court agrees the first factor favors Goldsmith. P. 38.

11 F. 4th 26, affirmed.

Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Jackson, J., joined. Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., joined.