The article basically clarifies a good reason why > the first fair use factor instead focuses on whether an allegedly infringing use has a further purpose or d

The article basically clarifies a good reason why > the first fair use factor instead focuses on whether an allegedly infringing use has a further purpose or different character, which is a matter of degree, and the degree of difference must be weighed against other considerations, like commercialism. if you made a transformative version of Marvin Gaye's song (perhaps as part of a gallery installation), even if was just pitch altered or something like that, there would be no 'commercialism' involved and your version would not be competing with the original. Warhol's version here does seem like it would be transformative enough to be in the gallery, but not, as it was in this case, to be sold for marketing purposes which evidently is in competition with the original photo.