Weird. A lot of the comments here seem to be talking about copyright issues that aren't present in this case. The Supreme Court's decision is linked from the a

Weird. A lot of the comments here seem to be talking about copyright issues that aren't present in this case. The Supreme Court's decision is linked from the article (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf [pdf]), and the first few pages summarize the facts of the case and go to lengths to present a very limited scope for the ruling. I haven't finished reading all 87 pages, perhaps there is something further along in the ruling that people are specifically concerned about, but if there is, there's no hint about that in the comments here or the article about it or in the summary. First, the Court notes that it is specifically testing only one aspect of the Fair Use doctrine: "In this Court, the sole question presented is whether 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...” It continues: "...the fact that a use is commercial as opposed to nonprofit is an additional element of the first fair use factor. The commercial nature of a use is relevant, but not dispositive." and: "...in a broad sense, a use that has a distinct purpose is justified because it furthers the goal of copyright, namely, to promote the progress of science and the arts, without diminishing the incentive to create." and (most importantly, IMO): "...The same copying may be fair when used for one purpose but not another..." There is some very specific context here. Lynn Goldsmith originally licensed this photograph to Vanity Fair for a single use only as an "artist reference for an illustration". VF then hired Warhol, Warhol made the derivative work in 1984, VF published it, and VF paid Goldsmith for the license. All was fine at this point. Then Prince dies in 2016, and Conde Nast (parent company for Vanity Fair) contacts the Andy Warhol Foundation, and they say, "hey, we've got a nice Orange Prince you can use", and they sold a license for that art to Conde Nast for $10,000. Goldsmith did not even know Orange Prince existed. She sees it on a magazine cover, and contacts the Andy Warhol Foundation to say, "hey, I think this might be a copyright infringement," and AWF pre-emptively sues her for declaratory judgement of non-infringement. The Court decided this case in favor of Goldsmith explicitly because both versions of the artwork are competing for the exact same kind of commercial use. i.e., had AWF merely been presenting this in an art gallery, it is less likely to have been found to be infringing. (And, had AWF not been massive dicks about the matter to begin with, this case might not have even gone to court.)