This past week, the Supreme Court in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Lynn Goldsmith grappled with the difficult relationship between “derivative” and “transformative” uses of a copyrighted work in a high-stakes dispute between two industry heavyweights, each looking to land a knockout blow. The extended judicial dialogue did not reveal a clear winner—nor should it have. In such cases, where both parties contribute to a masterpiece, some division of the spoils is the voice of principled moderation.

In 1984, the noted photographer Lynn Goldsmith granted an “artist’s reference license” to Vanity Fair for the preparation of one rendition of the famed entertainer Prince to appear twice in its November 1984 issue. That license did not specify who that artist would be, and it only allowed the chosen artist to get inspiration from the photograph, not build off it. Vanity Fair picked the famed artist Andy Warhol, a.k.a. “Andy the Appropriator,” who is now best known for his imaginative recreations of photographs of Marilyn Monroe and Campbell’s soup cans. True to form, Warhol used the Goldsmith photograph as direct source and made not one but fifteen silkscreens, each with its own distinctive feature. Two pictures tell the tale: