WIPO中国：法庭之上：美国最高法院沃霍尔案判决重新审视合理使用的界限

2023年5月，美国最高法院就安迪·沃霍尔基金会（AWF）诉戈德史密斯等（沃霍尔案）下达了备受期待的判决。判决支持知名摄影师林恩·戈德史密斯（Lynn Goldsmith）的主张，安迪·沃霍尔基金会（AWF）侵犯了她对已故艺人Prince照片的版权，基金会在2016年Prince去世后，将安迪·沃霍尔基于这张照片创作的插画许可给《名利场》用作封面。

In May 2023, the United States Supreme Court handed down its much-anticipated decision on Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF) v. Goldsmith et al (the Warhol case) . The decision upheld the claim by the celebrity photographer, Lynn Goldsmith, that the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF) had infringed her copyright in a photo of the late entertainer Prince, when, after Prince's death in 2016, the Foundation licensed an illustration by Andy Warhol based on that photo, to Vanity Fair for a cover.

该案将对源作品的自由艺术使用主张与这些作品创作者（主要为摄影师）开拓基于其创作的作品市场的能力对立起来。大多数法官关注的焦点是源作品创作者谋求生计的前景（"即使面对著名艺术家"），而不同意见则围绕安迪·沃霍尔的才华以及对现有作品进行艺术借用的悠久传统。 

The case pitted claims to free artistic use of source works against the ability of the creators of those works (mainly photographers) to exploit markets for works based on their creations. The majority of the Justices focused on the prospects of the creator of the source work to make a living ("even against famous artists"), while the dissent trained on the genius of Andy Warhol, and a long tradition of artistic borrowing from prior works.

背景 

Background

1981年，戈德史密斯为Prince拍摄了一幅肖像作品。1984年，在一份"一次性使用"协议中，戈德史密斯以400美元将照片许可"给《名利场》杂志作为艺术家参考使用"。《名利场》委托安迪·沃霍尔基于该照片创作一幅插图，并在1984年11月刊中与一篇关于Prince的文章共同刊登。出版时，《名利场》注明戈德史密斯为沃霍尔插画的照片来源。 

In 1981, Goldsmith created a portrait of Prince. In 1984, in a "one time, one use" agreement, Goldsmith licensed the photograph for USD 400 "to Vanity Fair magazine for use as an artist reference." Vanity Fair commissioned Andy Warhol to create an illustration based on the photograph and published it together with an article about Prince in its November 1984 issue. On publication, Vanity Fair credited Goldsmith for the source photograph of Warhol's illustration.

沃霍尔的插画是其基于戈德史密斯的照片创作的16幅丝网印刷作品、版画和素描系列中的一幅。他生前并未出售或以其他方式利用这些作品。这些作品是这位已故艺术家遗产的一部分，由安迪·沃霍尔基金会（AWF）管理。 

Warhol's illustration was one of a series of 16 silkscreen paintings, prints and drawings he created based on Goldsmith's photograph. He had not sold or otherwise exploited these works during his lifetime. The works form part of the late artist's estate managed by the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF).

2016年Prince去世后，《名利场》从沃霍尔基金会获得许可，在关于这位艺人生平的特刊封面上再次刊登了沃霍尔插画的其中一幅（不同于1984年版刊登的）。但是，这次《名利场》并没有获得戈德史密斯的许可，特刊也没有注明戈德史密斯的原版照片。戈德史密斯在得知自己的作品被擅自使用后，通知沃霍尔基金会这侵犯了她原版照片的版权。作为回应，沃霍尔基金会对她提起上诉，声称其对照片的使用是不构成侵权的合理使用。 

After Prince died in 2016, Vanity Fair obtained a license from AWF to republish one of the Warhol illustrations (a different one from that published in its 1984 edition) on the cover of its special issue on the entertainer's life. On this occasion, however, Vanity Fair did not obtain a license from Goldsmith, nor did the special issue credit Goldmith's original photo. When Goldsmith learned of this unauthorized use of her work, she notified AWF that it had infringed the copyright in her original photo. In response, AWF sued her, claiming that its use of the photograph was a non-infringing fair use.

下级法院对沃霍尔案的意见：通往最高法院之路

What the lower courts said in the Warhol case: the pathway to the Supreme Court

地区法院支持沃霍尔基金会的合理使用抗辩。该院认为沃霍尔的插画具有转化性，因为"Prince系列作品中的每一幅都能一眼辨认出是'沃霍尔'的作品，而非Prince的照片"。该院还指出，沃霍尔的插画不太可能取代戈德史密斯的照片市场。"很明显，沃霍尔的市场与戈德史密斯的美术或其他类型印刷品市场并不相同。"对于戈德史密斯辩称沃霍尔基金会未经许可的使用与她许可照片的能力相互竞争，法院也不置可否："这并不意味着杂志或唱片公司会许可沃霍尔的转化性作品，以代替戈德史密斯的写实照片"。

The district court upheld AWF's fair use defense. It found the Warhol illustration transformative because "each Prince Series work is immediately recognizable as a 'Warhol' rather than as a photograph of Prince." It also noted that Warhol's illustration was unlikely to supplant the market for Goldsmith's photograph. "It is plain that the markets for a Warhol and for a Goldsmith fine-art or other type of print are different." The court also gave short shrift to Goldsmith's contention that AWF's unlicensed use competed with her ability to license her photograph: "this does not suggest that a magazine or record company would license a transformative Warhol work in lieu of a realistic Goldsmith photograph."

第二巡回上诉法院推翻了地区法院的判决。针对合理使用的第一个要素，第二巡回法院斥责地区法院适用明线规则，即"任何对源材料添加了新的美学或新表现形式的二次创作均必然具有转化性"。

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision. Addressing the first fair use factor, the Second Circuit chided the district court for applying a bright line rule "that any secondary work that adds a new aesthetic or new expression to its source material is necessarily transformative."

第二巡回法院还指出，沃霍尔的使用"具有商业性质，但……产生了服务于更大公共利益的艺术价值。[……]尽管如此，正如我们无法认为Prince系列在法律上具有转化性一样，我们也不能认定沃霍尔和沃霍尔基金会有权在不支付戈德史密斯其作品权利的'习惯性定价'情况下从中获利[……]"。 

The Second Circuit also observed that Warhol's use was "commercial in nature, but . . . produce[d] an artistic value that serves the greater public interest. […] Nevertheless, just as we cannot hold that the Prince Series is transformative as a matter of law, neither can we conclude that Warhol and AWF are entitled to monetize it without paying Goldsmith the 'customary price' for the rights to her work […]..

第二巡回法院还认为，其余的合理使用要素对戈德史密斯有利。她的作品具有创造性（要素2）；沃霍尔在不需要采用戈德史密斯对艺术家Prince的表现形式（相对于任何照片表现形式）情况下，复制了戈德史密斯照片的可识别精髓（要素3）；沃霍尔基金会夺走了许可照片作为用于杂志刊登的"艺术家参考"的既定市场（要素4）。 

The Second Circuit also found the remaining fair use factors favored Goldsmith. Her work was creative (factor 2); Warhol copied the identifiable essence of Goldsmith's photograph without establishing a need to take Goldsmith's representation (as opposed to any photographic representation) of the artist Prince (factor 3); AWF usurped the established market for licensing photographs as "artists' references" for magazine publication (factor 4).

最高法院同意审理上诉，但仅针对第一个要素，即从沃霍尔基金会许可作品供杂志刊登致敬Prince的角度进行审查。"就该狭义问题以及仅限于挑战性使用方面，该院认同第二巡回法院：第一个要素对戈德史密斯有利，而非沃霍尔基金会。"法院驳回了沃霍尔基金会的论点，即"Prince系列作品具有'转化性'，第一个因素因此对其有利，因为作品传递了不同于照片的意义或信息"。

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal, but only as to the first factor, which it examined from the perspective of AWF's licensing of the work for publication in a magazine tribute to Prince. "On that narrow issue, and limited to the challenged use, the Court agrees with the Second Circuit: The first factor favors Goldsmith, not AWF." The Court rejected AWF's contention that "the Prince Series works are 'transformative,' and that the first factor therefore weighs in their favor, because the works convey a different meaning or message than the photograph."

相反，最高法院明确指出，创作添加"新意义或信息"的新作品本身不足以让使用具有"转化性"。该院因而恢复了"转化性使用"的最初含义，作为与其他元素相权衡的一个考虑因素，尤其是被告使用中的商业特征。 

Instead, the Court made clear that creating a new work that adds a "new meaning or message" is not sufficient of itself to make a use "transformative." The Court thus has restored the original meaning of "transformative use," as a consideration to be weighed against other elements, notably the commercial character of the defendant's use.

通过强调沃霍尔基金会使用的目的和特征，最高法院避开了对衍生作品与戈德史密斯的源照片有何不同的审查。该院从而避免了陷入对沃霍尔作品艺术价值的讨论——此类版权调查法院应摒弃。相反，最高法院重点关注沃霍尔基金会作品的利用在多大程度上意图替代戈德史密斯在一级和二级市场中利用自己作品的其中一种方式，换言之，即她从自己的作品中创造收入的能力。 

By emphasizing the purpose and character of the AWF's use, the Court sidestepped examination of how the derivative work differed from the Goldsmith's source photo. The Court thus avoided falling into the trap of addressing the artistic merits of Warhol's work – an inquiry copyright courts are supposed to abjure. Rather, the Court focused on the extent to which the exploitation of AWF's work was intended to substitute for one of the ways in which Goldsmith could exploit her work in primary and secondary markets, in other words, her ability to generate revenue from her work.

将第一个要素的调查重点从被告作品的"转化性"转移至使用目的或特征的独特性后，主要意见承认"同样的复制在用于一种目的时可能合理，但用于另一种目的则不然"。因此，一些未经原告授权的使用或许合理，而另一些则不然，即便使用涉及同一件作品。 

In shifting the focus of the first factor inquiry from the "transformativeness" of the defendant's work to the distinctness of the use's purpose or character, the majority acknowledged that "The same copying may be fair when used for one purpose but not another." Thus, some uses not authorized by the plaintiff might be fair and others not, even though the uses involve the same work.