It turned out that what the majority actually had problems with — what the decision was mostly about — was the Warhol Foundation’s failure to pay Goldsmith a licensing fee in 2016. It looked like the court had sidestepped the larger issue of whether Warhol should have used her image at all. Or that’s what this new ruling would let some artists and their lawyers argue. At the very least, the ruling won’t send museums rushing to consign the appropriations they own to the dark depths of the vaults, as a more sweeping ruling against Warhol might have done. So long as appropriation artists aren’t selling licenses for their creations to be reproduced — for instance, in a popular magazine — the Supreme Court’s new decision should not affect them.

---