← All Authorities
United States Leading Case copyright

Warhol Foundation v Goldsmith

598 US 508 (2023)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year2023
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Fair use factor one requires assessing whether a derivative work serves a different purpose; licensing it for the same purpose as the original weighs against fair use even if stylistically transformative.

Key Principle

Fair use factor one requires courts to assess whether the use serves a different purpose; licensing a derivative work for the same purpose as the original weighs against fair use even if the work is transformative in style.

Area of Law

ip

Related Cases

Cantarella Bros Pty Ltd v Modena Trading Pty Ltd (2014) 254 CLR 337

Foreign words used as trademarks are assessed for descriptiveness in the Australian English-speaking market; Italian words for coffee were registrable as not inherently descriptive.

Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Ltd v Commonwealth (2012) 246 CLR 561

Statutory licence scheme for sound recordings validly enacted under constitutional copyright power and did not constitute an unjust acquisition of property.

Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd (2012) 248 CLR 42

An ISP that failed to act on infringement notices did not authorise subscribers' copyright infringement via BitTorrent, as it lacked the requisite control over the infringing acts.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Warhol Foundation v Goldsmith and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Warhol Foundation v Goldsmith