Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith
Headline: Court limits fair use for commercial licensing of Warhol’s Prince silkscreen, ruling photographers keep stronger control when magazines reuse portraits and foundations cannot freely license altered photos.
Holding:
- Makes it harder to license altered photos for magazine covers without photographer permission.
- Strengthens photographers’ control over commercial portrait uses.
- Limits fair use defenses in commercial publishing contexts.
Summary
Background
Lynn Goldsmith is a professional photographer who took a portrait of Prince in 1981. She licensed one photo to Vanity Fair in 1984 as a one-time “artist reference” for $400 and was credited. Andy Warhol used that photo to create the Prince Series. After Prince’s death, the Warhol Foundation licensed an orange silkscreen from that series to Condé Nast in 2016 for $10,000. Goldsmith sued for copyright infringement; the Foundation sought a judgment that its use was fair. The district court found fair use; the Second Circuit reversed.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court limited review to the first fair use factor: the purpose and character of the use. The Court explained that this factor asks whether a later use “adds something new”—a different purpose or character—or instead serves the same purpose as the original, and that commercial uses weigh against fair use. The Court held that the Foundation’s 2016 commercial licensing of Orange Prince to a magazine shared substantially the same purpose as Goldsmith’s photograph (both were portraits used to illustrate magazine stories about Prince) and was commercial. Because the specific challenged use had the same basic purpose and was commercial, the first factor favors Goldsmith. The Court declined to decide whether creating, displaying, or selling the original Prince Series works is fair use.
Real world impact
The decision means photographers have stronger protection when magazines and publishers seek portraits to illustrate stories: artists and foundations cannot assume commercial licensing of altered images will be treated as fair use. The ruling applies to the specific commercial licensing at issue and does not resolve other uses of Warhol’s works; future disputes may yield different results depending on context and purpose.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Gorsuch concurred, emphasizing the focus on the specific use. Justice Kagan dissented, arguing Warhol’s work was highly transformative and cautioning that the majority’s rule could limit artistic creativity.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?