Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts v. Goldsmith
In brief
The Supreme Court upheld the Second Circuit’s ruling: the Foundation’s commercial licensing of Orange Prince did not favor its fair-use defense.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 7-2 · May 18, 2023 · Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
- 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.
- Who it affects
- The ruling leaves the Second Circuit’s decision in place for this dispute.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court ruled that the commercial nature and similar purpose of the use weighed against a finding of fair use under the Copyright Act.
The case sits at the boundary between copyright protection for photographs and new art that draws on them, especially when that art is commercially licensed.
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.
What the Court decided
Holding
The “purpose and character” of AWF’s use of Goldsmith’s photograph in commercially licensing Orange Prince to Condé Nast does not favor AWF’s fair use defense to copyright infringement. 11 F. 4th 26, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
From the opinions
“Still more, the Court decides that even if Warhol’s portrait were transformative-even if its expression and meaning were worlds away from the photo-that fact would not matter.”
What's next
The Second Circuit’s ruling remains in place for this dispute. Lower courts will apply the Supreme Court’s guidance on the purpose and character of commercial uses when considering similar fair-use claims.
Why it matters
It gives lower courts guidance on the first fair-use factor (one of four questions), including how a commercial use’s purpose and character (its reason and nature) can weigh against fair use.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
Show 6 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
Case data updated: status, opinion_date
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith decide?
- The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling and said the Foundation’s commercial licensing of Orange Prince did not favor a fair-use defense.
- How did commercial licensing affect fair use here?
- The Court said the purpose and character of the commercial licensing use did not favor the Foundation’s fair-use defense.
- What happens next after the decision?
- The Second Circuit’s ruling stays in place, and lower courts will apply this guidance to similar commercial fair-use disputes.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.