Warhol v. Goldsmith: Implications for Artists

In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, delivering a landmark decision on the boundaries of fair use in visual art.On May 18, 2023, the Court held, in a 7–2 ruling, that the Andy Warhol Foundation’s licensing of Warhol’s “Orange Prince” silkscreen portrait—based on a 1981 photograph of Prince taken by photographer Lynn Goldsmith—was not protected under the fair use doctrine.

Although Andy Warhol passed away in 1987, his artistic approach is well documented. Warhol often explained that his silkscreens of celebrities—like Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, and Prince—were meant to comment on fame, mass media, and consumer culture. In 1984, Vanity Fair commissioned a Warhol portrait of Prince based on Goldsmith’s image, with proper licensing for a one-time use. Warhol, however, created 16 variations without notifying Goldsmith—an act that lay dormant for decades until one variation, “Orange Prince,” was licensed again in 2016 after Prince’s death, this time without any compensation to Goldsmith.

Lynn Goldsmith, a respected rock and portrait photographer, has been vocal about how the unauthorized use of her photograph felt like a violation of her rights as an artist. She emphasized that she was not trying to stifle creativity or attack Warhol’s legacy, but rather to stand up for photographers whose work is often undervalued or exploited. Goldsmith noted that Warhol’s alterations—such as flattening the image and changing the color palette—didn’t transform the original meaning of her photo but instead depended on its emotional depth and composition. She described the experience of seeing her photograph repurposed in a major magazine without permission or payment as “painful” and “humiliating.”

The ramifications of the ruling were substantial for the Warhol Foundation and visual artists at large. The Court’s decision significantly narrowed the application of “transformative use” under fair use, particularly in commercial contexts. It sent a clear message that simply adding a new aesthetic or perspective to existing copyrighted work does not automatically qualify as fair use if the purpose overlaps commercially with the original.

Although Warhol himself could not respond or appeal—having died decades earlier—the Warhol Foundation pursued the case to the highest court, arguing that Warhol’s work was transformative art. The decision does not retroactively invalidate Warhol’s other works, but it casts a long shadow over the practice of using copyrighted source material without proper licensing.

For artists and institutions, the case reinforced the importance of respecting original creators’ rights—even when the secondary work is by a cultural icon like Warhol. It has already influenced how photographers, visual artists, publishers, and art institutions approach licensing and appropriation.