Prince’s Andy Warhol’s posters, some shaded purple and others orange, may have been works of art, but they infringed on the copyright of the photographer who captured the musician’s original image, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a 7-2 decision, the judges upheld the power of copyright, mostly rejecting the claim that artists and others are free to use original works if they transform them into something new and different.

Decades after Warhol died, the Andy Warhol Foundation continued to earn licensing fees for the use of his Prince series, while refusing to pay a fee to Lynn Goldsmith, the photographer who produced the images the artist had relied on.

Their legal dispute has been closely watched in the arts and entertainment industries, which rely on copyrighted originals as well as new and derivative works.

“Lynn Goldsmith’s original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote in AWF v. Goldsmith.

In considering what constitutes “fair use” of a copyrighted work, the court first considered “the purpose and nature of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes”, she said in a 39-page decision.

Warhol’s prints and Goldsmith’s photo began as licensed works for a portrait of the musician in Vanity Fair magazine, she said. Because the two works “have essentially the same purpose and use is commercial in nature,” the Warhol Foundation had “no compelling justification for the unauthorized use of the photograph,” she concluded.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch said the court was right to focus narrowly on the commercial purpose of the two works rather than their artistic appeal or value.

“Nothing in the law obliges judges to try art criticism and judge the aesthetic character of the resulting work,” he said, joined by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In a 36-page dissent, Judge Elena Kagan, accompanied by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., said:

the

majority was wrong.

“Today, the court rules that Andy Warhol’s dazzling serigraph of Prince, a work based on an existing photograph but dramatically altered, is not ‘transformative,'” she wrote.

“Warhol is a towering figure in modern art, not in spite of, but because of his use of source material. His work, whether it be Soup Cans and Brillo Boxes or Marilyn and Prince, has turned something that is not his into something that all his,” Kagan wrote. “If Warhol doesn’t get credit for transformative copying, who will?”

Boston attorney Nicholas O’Donnell, an art law expert, said the court’s ruling may have limited impact because it focuses on the commercial use of both works.

“The court carefully avoids many of the broader questions about the boundaries of fair use in fine art, which is an interesting choice,” he said. “Most importantly, the court categorically rejected the idea that any new…post qualifies as fair use in itself, since such an exception would engulf the fair use rule.”

Los Angeles attorney Douglas Mirell predicted the decision could have implications for the film industry: This ruling could be extremely problematic for documentary filmmakers and others who often rely on “fair use” as a defense for using clips of copyrighted material. working to tell the story.”