## Facts

- Lynn Goldsmith took and copyrighted a 1981 studio photograph of Prince.
- In 1984, Goldsmith’s agency licensed the photograph to a magazine for a one-time use as an artist reference, with Goldsmith credited.
- Andy Warhol used the photograph to create an illustration for the magazine and additionally produced 16 related silkscreens and drawings (the “Prince Series”) derived from the photograph.
- After Prince’s death, the magazine’s publisher sought a commemorative cover image; the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. (AWF) licensed “Orange Prince” from the Prince Series for about $10,000.
- Goldsmith received no fee or credit for the 2016 license and, upon learning of the series, asserted infringement.

## Issues

1. Under the first fair use factor, whether AWF’s commercial licensing of “Orange Prince” to a magazine as a cover illustration about Prince was “transformative” in purpose and character relative to Goldsmith’s photograph.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s judgment in relevant part and held, 7–2, that the first factor did not favor fair use for AWF’s 2016 commercial license.
- The Court concluded the use was commercial and had a substantially similar purpose to Goldsmith’s licensing of photographs to magazines to illustrate stories about Prince.
- The Court limited its analysis to the specific challenged use (the 2016 licensing transaction), not the Prince Series as a whole or other potential uses.

## Legal Principles

- Fair use factor one must be assessed with reference to the particular use alleged to be infringing, not an abstract assessment of the secondary work.
- A claimed new “meaning or message” may be relevant to transformation, but it is not dispositive; courts must also consider the objective purpose of the use and its commercial nature.
- When a secondary user commercially exploits a work for a substantially similar purpose in a substantially overlapping licensing market, factor one will tend to weigh against fair use even if the secondary work differs in style or appearance.
- The concept of transformative use cannot be applied in a way that effectively overrides the copyright owner’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works.

## Conclusion

The Court held that AWF’s commercial licensing of “Orange Prince” to a magazine to illustrate content about Prince shared substantially the same purpose as Goldsmith’s photograph licensing and therefore did not qualify as transformative under the first fair use factor for that specific use.


Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023)