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

Decided May 18, 2023. Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court.

Docket 21-869 · 598 U.S. 508 (2023) · Cited 41 times

Holding

The “purpose and character” of the Andy Warhol Foundation’s particular commercial use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph—17 U. S. C. §107(1)—does not favor AWF’s “fair use” defense to copyright infringement.

The Court’s statement of the holding, from the opinion’s syllabus. The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court. Read the official opinion for authority.

How the Justices voted

Decided 7–2.

“Concurring” means agreeing with the outcome; any split shown is the Court’s judgment, not each Justice’s reasoning. The lineup is the syllabus’s disposition of who wrote and joined each opinion. Source: the opinion’s syllabus (supremecourt.gov).

Precedents cited

Supreme Court decisions this opinion relies on, ordered by how often it cites each. Cases in our collection link through; others are named.

• Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. · 510 U.S. 569 (1994)
• Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises · 471 U.S. 539 (1985)
• Stewart v. Abend · 495 U.S. 207 (1990)
• Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. · 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
• Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
• United States v. American Tobacco Co. · 221 U.S. 106 (1911)
• Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. · 188 U.S. 239 (1903)
• TWENTIETH CENTURY MUSIC CORP. Et Al. v. AIKEN · 422 U.S. 151 (1975)

Official text

Read the official opinion (PDF, supremecourt.gov)

Explore from here

Sonia Sotomayor’s profile · All Supreme Court opinions · The Supreme Court

Source: Supreme Court of the United States, slip opinions (2023). Citation count from the Free Law Project’s CourtListener bulk data. Data last verified 2026-08-15. Informational only; verify against the primary source before relying. Not a consumer report (FCRA).