Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith
The Court ruled that a foundation's licensing of Andy Warhol's Prince Series images, based on a photographer's photograph of Prince, was not protected by fair use, as the works shared a similar purpose.· AI-written
598 U.S. 508 · No. 21-869 · 2022 term · Roberts Court
Decided May 18, 2023 · argued Oct 12, 2022
Economic activity · Patents and copyrights: copyright
Majority opinion: Sonia Sotomayor
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Affirmed. Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (2023), is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with transformative use, a component of fair use, under U.S. copyright law. At issue was the Prince Series created by Andy Warhol based on a photograph of the musician Prince by Lynn Goldsmith. It held Warhol's changes were insufficiently transformative to fall within fair use for commercial purposes, resolving an issue arising from a split between the Second and Ninth circuits among others.
Goldsmith had taken her photograph in 1981 on assignment for Newsweek and retained copyright on it afterwards; it was not published. Three years later, Vanity Fair licensed the image for Andy Warhol to use as a reference for a silkscreen illustration of Prince to be published, by agreement with Goldsmith, only once, with her credited. But Warhol used the image as the basis for his Prince Series without asking or notifying Goldsmith; she only learned of the images' existence when Vanity Fair's publisher, Condé Nast, used one as the cover image, with no attribution, for a special tribute magazine to Prince after his death in 2016, which was licensed by the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF). Litigation ensued in federal court between Goldsmith and the Warhol Foundation, which has administered the artist's works since his death, over whether Warhol's reuse of the image had infringed her copyright. The Southern District of New York sided with the foundation in 2019, but was reversed by the Second Circuit two years later.
The Second Circuit's reversal relied in part on a "clarification" of its 2013 holding in the very similar case of Cariou v. Prince (the photographer Patrick Cariou versus the painter Richard Prince), to the effect that a secondary work was not necessarily transformative of the original just because it was aesthetically different; it must also serve a distinguishably different artistic purpose, which Warhol's work, when used on a magazine cover to depict Prince, did not. Legal commentators, including Nimmer on Copyright and another appellate circuit, had criticized Cariou in particular and the Second Circuit in general as giving too great a weight to transformative use in determining fair use.
In May 2023, the Court ruled 7–2 that AWF's use of Goldsmith's photographs was not protected by fair use.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2022 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Sonia SotomayorWrote the majority opinion
Neil GorsuchWrote a concurrence
Ketanji JacksonJoined the majority
Brett KavanaughJoined the majority
Amy BarrettJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
Elena KaganWrote a dissent
John RobertsJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual ArtsAgent, fiduciary, trustee, or executor
- Respondent
- GoldsmithAuthor, copyright holder
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Copyright Act
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- May 18, 2023DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: affirmed. Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts lost.
- Oct 12, 2022ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: reversed and remanded.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
36 other argued cases since 1946 on patents and copyrights: copyright, newest first.
- Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entm't607 U.S. 583Mar 25, 2026 · 607 U.S. 583Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Warner Chappell Music v. Neal601 U.S. 366May 9, 2024 · 601 U.S. 366Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Unicolors, Inc v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP145 S. Ct. 941Feb 24, 2022 · 145 S. Ct. 941Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc.Landmark141 S. Ct. 1163Apr 5, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1163Economic activityLandmark6–27–2 band
- Georgia v. Public.resource.org Inc.140 S. Ct. 1498Apr 27, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1498Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.139 S. Ct. 873Mar 4, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 873Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com139 S. Ct. 881Mar 4, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 881Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.137 S. Ct. 1002Mar 22, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1002Economic activity6–27–2 band
- American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc.573 U.S. 431Jun 25, 2014 · 573 U.S. 431Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.572 U.S. 663May 19, 2014 · 572 U.S. 663Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Supap Kirtsaeng, dba Bluechristine99, Petitioner v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.568 U.S. 519Mar 19, 2013 · 568 U.S. 519Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Lawrence Golan, et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.565 U.S. 302Jan 18, 2012 · 565 U.S. 302Economic activity6–27–2 band
- Costco Wholesale Corporation, Petitioner v. Omega, S.A.562 U.S. 40Dec 13, 2010 · 562 U.S. 40Economic activity4–45–4 band
- Reed Elsevier, Inc., et al., v. Irvin Muchnick et al.559 U.S. 154Mar 2, 2010 · 559 U.S. 154Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.545 U.S. 913Jun 27, 2005 · 545 U.S. 913Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Eric Eldred, et al. v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General537 U.S. 186Jan 15, 2003 · 537 U.S. 186Economic activity7–27–2 band
- New York Times Company, Inc., et al. v. Jonathan Tasini, et al.533 U.S. 483Jun 25, 2001 · 533 U.S. 483Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.Landmark532 U.S. 23Mar 20, 2001 · 532 U.S. 23Economic activityLandmark9–0Unanimous band
- C. Elvin Feltner, Jr. v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.523 U.S. 340Mar 31, 1998 · 523 U.S. 340Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anza Research International, Inc.523 U.S. 135Mar 9, 1998 · 523 U.S. 135Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc.516 U.S. 233Jan 16, 1996 · 516 U.S. 233Economic activity4–45–4 band
- Luther R. Campbell aka Luke Skyywalker, et al. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.Landmark · Copyright/Patents510 U.S. 569Mar 7, 1994 · 510 U.S. 569Economic activityLandmark · Copyright/Patents9–0Unanimous band
- Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc.Landmark · Copyright/Patents499 U.S. 340Mar 27, 1991 · 499 U.S. 340Economic activityLandmark · Copyright/Patents9–0Unanimous band
- Stewart et al. v. Abend, dba Authors Research Co.495 U.S. 207Apr 24, 1990 · 495 U.S. 207Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Community for Creative Non-Violence et al. v. Reid490 U.S. 730Jun 5, 1989 · 490 U.S. 730Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., et al. v. Nation Enterprises et al.Landmark · Copyright/Patents471 U.S. 539May 20, 1985 · 471 U.S. 539Economic activityLandmark · Copyright/Patents6–36–3 band
- Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder et al.469 U.S. 153Jan 8, 1985 · 469 U.S. 153Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Sony Corporation of America et al. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., et al.Landmark · Copyright/Patents464 U.S. 417Jan 17, 1984 · 464 U.S. 417Economic activityLandmark · Copyright/Patents5–45–4 band
- Twentieth Century Music Corp. et al. v. Aiken422 U.S. 151Jun 17, 1975 · 422 U.S. 151Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Teleprompter Corp. et al. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., et al.415 U.S. 394Mar 4, 1974 · 415 U.S. 394Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Goldstein et al. v. California412 U.S. 546Jun 18, 1973 · 412 U.S. 546Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.392 U.S. 390Jun 17, 1968 · 392 U.S. 390Economic activity5–18–1 band
- Public Affairs Associates, Inc., Trading As Public Affairs Press, v. Rickover369 U.S. 111Mar 5, 1962 · 369 U.S. 111Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc.362 U.S. 373Apr 18, 1960 · 362 U.S. 373Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., et al. v. Loew's Inc. et al.356 U.S. 43Mar 17, 1958 · 356 U.S. 43Economic activity4–45–4 band
- F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc.344 U.S. 228Dec 22, 1952 · 344 U.S. 228Economic activity7–27–2 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.