Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith
The Facts
Lynn Goldsmith photographed Prince in 1981 under a license limiting use. Vanity Fair licensed the photo to Andy Warhol in 1984 to create a reference image for an illustration. Warhol made 16 silkscreen works based on Goldsmith's photo. After Prince's death, the Warhol Foundation licensed one of the silkscreens to Condé Nast for a 2016 commemorative magazine. Goldsmith sued for copyright infringement. The Second Circuit found no fair use; the Supreme Court affirmed on the commercial licensing question, leaving open whether the original 1984 creation was fair use.
The Application
Although Warhol's silkscreen visually transformed Goldsmith's photograph, the Court held that formal transformation could not justify fair use when the Warhol Foundation licensed the work for the identical commercial purpose as Goldsmith's original, magazine illustration. The majority narrowed the transformativeness doctrine by holding that fair use depends on whether a secondary work serves the same market purpose as the original, not merely on whether it looks different; the Foundation's licensing to Condé Nast directly displaced Goldsmith's licensing market and could not claim fair use protection. By anchoring fair use to commercial purpose and market competition rather than artistic metamorphosis, the Court rejected the argument that stylistic differences alone shield derivative works from infringement liability.
The Conclusion
**Decided May 18, 2023. The 7-2 ruling (Sotomayor writing) found the Warhol Foundation's commercial licensing not protected fair use.** The decision constrains the transformativeness doctrine in commercial contexts and has significant implications for derivative art markets, especially where the secondary work and the original serve the same commercial purpose.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith (2023) held 7-2 that Andy Warhol's 1984 silkscreen of Prince, made from a licensed Lynn Goldsmith photograph, was not a fair use when the Warhol Foundation licensed it to Condé Nast for a 2016 Prince tribute magazine. The majority focused on the commercial purpose and the fact that both Warhol's work and the original photograph served the same market (magazine illustrations of Prince), rejecting the argument that Warhol's transformation of the image into commentary on celebrity created a new meaning that justified fair use.
Facts
Lynn Goldsmith photographed Prince in 1981 under a license limiting use. Vanity Fair licensed the photo to Andy Warhol in 1984 to create a reference image for an illustration. Warhol made 16 silkscreen works based on Goldsmith's photo. After Prince's death, the Warhol Foundation licensed one of the silkscreens to Condé Nast for a 2016 commemorative magazine. Goldsmith sued for copyright infringement. The Second Circuit found no fair use; the Supreme Court affirmed on the commercial licensing question, leaving open whether the original 1984 creation was fair use.
Issue
Whether the Andy Warhol Foundation's licensing of Warhol's Prince silkscreen to a magazine for commercial use constituted fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107, given that the silkscreen was derived from Lynn Goldsmith's photograph.
Rule
17 U.S.C. § 107 fair use factors: (1) purpose and character of the use, including whether commercial; (2) nature of the copyrighted work; (3) amount and substantiality of the portion used; (4) effect on the potential market. The transformativeness doctrine (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 1994) asks whether the secondary work adds new meaning or expression. The majority narrowed transformativeness for the first fair use factor.
Analysis
Although Warhol's silkscreen visually transformed Goldsmith's photograph, the Court held that formal transformation could not justify fair use when the Warhol Foundation licensed the work for the identical commercial purpose as Goldsmith's original. Magazine illustration. The majority narrowed the transformativeness doctrine by holding that fair use depends on whether a secondary work serves the same market purpose as the original, not merely on whether it looks different; the Foundation's licensing to Condé Nast directly displaced Goldsmith's licensing market and could not claim fair use protection. By anchoring fair use to commercial purpose and market competition rather than artistic metamorphosis, the Court rejected the argument that stylistic differences alone shield derivative works from infringement liability.
Conclusion
**Decided May 18, 2023. The 7-2 ruling (Sotomayor writing) found the Warhol Foundation's commercial licensing not protected fair use.** The decision constrains the transformativeness doctrine in commercial contexts and has significant implications for derivative art markets, especially where the secondary work and the original serve the same commercial purpose.
Notes
OT2022. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support