Skip to main content

No. 21-869October Term 2022Decided May 18, 2023

Docket 21-869October Term 2022 (2022–2023)

Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith

A new artistic work does not automatically qualify as fair use when it is commercially licensed for a similar purpose as the original photograph.

Case status

Current stage
Decided
Latest event
Decision released May 18, 2023
Case Accepted
Arguments HeardOct 12, 2022
Decision ReleasedMay 18, 2023
What it's about

The Supreme Court considered whether the Andy Warhol Foundation's commercial licensing of artwork derived from Lynn Goldsmith's copyrighted photograph of the musician Prince constituted fair use. The Court ruled that the commercial nature and similar purpose of the use weighed against a finding of fair use under the Copyright Act.

Question presented

Whether the Andy Warhol Foundation's commercial licensing of artwork derived from Lynn Goldsmith's copyrighted photograph of the musician Prince constituted fair use.

Case path

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit / Decision released May 18, 2023

Area

Business and Regulation

Briefing

What it's about

The Court said the Andy Warhol Foundation's commercial licensing of Orange Prince to Condé Nast did not favor fair use of Lynn Goldsmith's Prince photograph. It affirmed the Second Circuit.

Impact

Commercial users of copyrighted images may face a harder fair-use argument when their new work serves a similar licensing purpose. This affects artists, publishers, and companies licensing altered images for magazines or other paid uses.

What's next

Lower courts will apply the decision when assessing commercial fair-use claims involving altered artworks. Artists, publishers, and licensors may reassess permissions for commercial uses of copyrighted source images.

What did the Supreme Court rule in Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith?

The Court said the Foundation's commercial licensing of Orange Prince did not favor fair use of Goldsmith's Prince photograph. It affirmed the Second Circuit.

Who is affected by the Warhol Foundation decision?

Artists, publishers, and companies licensing altered copyrighted images for paid uses may be affected. Commercial licensing for a similar purpose can weigh against fair use.

What happens next after Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith?

Lower courts will use the decision in future fair-use disputes. Copyright owners and commercial licensors may review whether permission is needed for altered images.

Decision

Decision record

What the Court decided

A new artistic work does not automatically qualify as fair use when it is commercially licensed for a similar purpose as the original photograph.

Impact

Photographers and artists are affected by commercial licensing of derived artwork. Fair use (a defense to copyright infringement) did not favor AWF’s Orange Prince licensing to Condé Nast. For example, Goldsmith received none of AWF’s $10,000 Vanity Fair cover fee. Future disputes could focus on specific commercial use, not only whether derived work has new meaning. Creators licensing images for magazine covers may face scrutiny when they serve essentially the same commercial purpose.

Not official Court text.

Timing

Decided May 18, 2023

The Court released its decision 218 days after oral argument on October 12, 2022. The median for cases argued in October is 139 days.

Based on 36 merits cases argued in October since 1995.Argument and decision days