In the Warhol-Goldsmith case, was Warhol's version considered protectable?

• A. Yes, Warhol's changes were enough for protection.
• B. No, Warhol's changes were not enough; Goldsmith won.
• C. The court dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
• D. The court ruled the work was not a derivative work.

Answer: (B)

Derivative works must add substantial original expression beyond the source material to be protectable. Warhol’s version relied on Goldsmith’s photograph, and the alterations—color treatment and silkscreen effect—did not contribute enough new, protectable authorship to create a separate copyrighted work. While the underlying photo remains Goldsmith’s, Warhol’s added elements aren’t enough to grant Warhol independent copyright protection for that derivative. So, even if the use could be viewed under fair use in some contexts, the derivative itself isn’t protectable as Warhol’s own work, and Goldsmith’s rights prevail.