In Justice Kagan’s blistering dissent in AWF v. Goldsmith, she stated the following:
If Warhol had used Goldsmith’s photo to comment on or critique Goldsmith’s photo, he might have availed himself of that factor’s benefit (though why anyone would be interested in that work is mysterious). [Emphasis added]
Kagan’s sweeping view that she could not imagine why there would be interest in a Warhol that comments upon the Goldsmith photo is, I assume, careless editorial—overlooking facts relevant to the instant case and, more broadly, ignoring the significance of commentary at the heart of the fair use doctrine. It is important to keep in mind that, but for this litigation, Goldsmith’s unpublished photo of Prince is not widely known, and it was certainly not known in the 1980s when Warhol made his screens. So, Justice Kagan is right to note that commenting upon a work that nobody had seen would be an absurdity but wrong if she means to imply that the courts should not look for “critical bearing” on the work used when weighing factor one.
You can’t tell a joke about a rabbi, a priest, and a monk walking into a bar if the listener doesn’t know what those three words mean. By this same principle, certain types of comment about protected works are impossible unless the work used has at least some presence in the minds of the intended audience. Parody is futile without the intended audience having an awareness of the work being lampooned, but education, criticism, or news reporting are all paradigmatic purposes under fair use that do not require the intended audience to have any familiarity with the work being used.
All three of those exemplary purposes may be introducing a work to the intended audience for the first time, but in those cases, the comment is likely to be explicit, in written or verbal form to discuss or critique the work being used. In such instances, it is relatively easy to determine, for instance, whether an article or blog post displays an image for illustrative purposes (disfavoring fair use) or displays an image for the purpose of critiquing the image and/or the artist (favoring fair use).
Finding “critical bearing” in a use may be more nuanced when one expressive artist uses another expressive artist’s work—e.g., a visual work commenting upon another visual work—and here, the notoriety of the work used likely plays a more significant role. For instance, in Leibovitz v. Paramount, we have a parody of a visual work made by another visual work. Observers (especially at the time) saw the image of pregnant Leslie Nielsen and were familiar with the iconic image of pregnant Demi Moore that was being lampooned. And to achieve the parody, it was necessary to copy the heart of Annie Leibovitz’s expression.
Of course, notoriety of the work being used entails a balancing act for the follow-on artist. On the one hand, the work used must be at least somewhat well known for the observer to perceive any comment being made about it. At the same time, the more famous the original work, the more the follow-on artist may be found to be riding the coattails of that fame and “avoiding the drudgery of working up something new.” In Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. ComicMix, the follow-on artists were found to have copied a substantial amount of the original expression—both quantitatively and qualitatively—of some of the most famous visual works ever made.
And although the defendants in ComicMix attempted to argue that there was parody in their mashup book, the asserted commentary was (as in Warhol) about topics or themes unrelated to any “critical bearing” on the works used. As described in other posts about ComicMix, the extensive amount of precise copying militated against fair use because the result was a book that any observer could mistake for a derivative work produced by the rightsholder. Thus, the “riding coattails” consideration weighs heavily against the follow-on creators.
Must All Observers Be “Ordinary”?
In Campbell, Leibovitz, and ComicMix, we have examples of wide-audience fame, but small-audience notoriety should not necessarily disqualify the follow-on artist from a reasonable claim to have expressed “critical bearing” on the work used. I once had a conversation with Professor Lateef Mtima about whether a jazz artist could successfully parody a well-known jazz work. We all might recognize, for instance, “Round Midnight” when we hear it, but if a new artist were to riff on that piece and interject elements that are intended as comment upon the original, it would probably take a very sophisticated listener to perceive the nature of that comment. If it were even possible.
As an exercise, this raises the question as to whether “critical bearing” on the work used must always be reasonably perceived by an “ordinary observer,” or whether the intended audience may be quite narrow. In the fine art world, where Warhol lives, is it necessary that everybody “get it,” if comment is in fact present? If fifty critics and a thousand art afficionados understand the comment being made, is that sufficient to find that factor one favors the use? I would predict that it may be sufficient for factor one, but that the uniqueness of the audience could militate against finding that factor four favors the use, depending on the market for the original.
I assume Justice Kagan’s off-the-cuff remark that she could not imagine interest in a Warhol that comments upon the Goldsmith photo was hyper-focused on the two works at issue—a parenthetical jibe in a snarky dissent, which overlooks the relevance of the photo’s obscurity at the time it was used. As such, Kagan inadvertently advises creators to consider the notoriety (intended audience’s awareness) of the work they propose to use and how that notoriety supports or rejects any claim to “critical bearing” as a result of the new use. Justice Kagan may not imagine such a thing, but artists should, if they want to make fair uses of protected works.
