Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith
View Official PDFSummary
A short, plain-English overview of Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the first fair use factor favored the Andy Warhol Foundation's commercial licensing of 'Orange Prince' to Condé Nast. The Court determined that the purpose and character of the use did not support a fair use defense, as the use was commercial and shared substantially the same purpose as the original photograph by Lynn Goldsmith. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith.
The Court held that 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.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith that support the summary and concepts above.
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.
The first fair use factor, 'the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,' § 107(1), considers the reasons for, and nature of, the copier's use of an original work.
In sum, if an original work and secondary use share the same or highly similar purposes, and the secondary use is commercial, the first fair use factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying.
