Page:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith.pdf/32

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
26
ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. v. GOLDSMITH

Opinion of the Court

uses. In Google, the Court suggested that “[a]n ‘artistic painting’ might, for example, fall within the scope of fair use even though it precisely replicates a copyrighted ‘advertising logo to make a comment about consumerism.’ ” 593 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 24–25) (quoting 4 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright §13.05[A][1][b] (2019), in turn quoting N. Netanel, Making Sense of Fair Use, 15 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 715, 746 (2011) (some internal quotation marks omitted)). That suggestion refers to Warhol’s works that incorporate advertising logos, such as the Campbell’s Soup Cans series. See fig. 7, infra.

Yet not all of Warhol’s works, nor all uses of them, give rise to the same fair use analysis. In fact, Soup Cans well illustrates the distinction drawn here. The purpose of Campbell’s logo is to advertise soup. Warhol’s canvases do

Figure 7. A print based on the Campbell’s soup can, one of Warhol’s works that replicates a copyrighted advertising logo.