Peter Friedman
Lawyer

View Peter Friedman's profile on LinkedIn

Ruling Imagination: Law and Creativity

August 17th, 2010 | copyright, copyright and fair use, originality

Andy Warhol was sued, but the cases were never decided.

After posting Campbell Soup’s letter to Andy Warhol expressing admiration for his Campbell Soup paintings 2 weeks ago, I’ve been asked by several people whether Warhol was ever sued for his appropriations of copyrighted photographs. He was indeed, though all of the cases settled out of court with Warhol “paying” by giving the plaintiffs pieces he had created. They therefore provide no guidance how courts would rule on those claims. Here’s the account from Patricia Search’s article, Electronic Art and the Law: Intellectual Property Rights in Cyberspace, Leonardo, Vol. 32, No. 3, 191, 193 (June 1999):

“Andy Warhol received legal complaints from photogra-phers Charles Moore, Fred Ward, and PatriciaCaulfield. Warhol used three of Charles Moore’s photographs of the Birmingham race riots in a 1964 painting called Race Riot. He also used a Life magazine cover photo of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, taken by Fred Ward after President Kennedy’s assassination, in several prints and paintings. Patricia Caulfield sued Warhol when she discovered that he had used one of her photographs in his1964 series of paintings and prints called Flowers.

“All of these cases were settled out of court. The photographers and their agents or attorneys received works of art from . . . Warhol . . . . Caulfield received a promise of royalties on future uses of her image by Warhol. Unfortunately, because these cases were settled out of court,no legal precedents were set concerning artistic appropriation of copyrighted material.”

This article has 1 comment

  1. Justin Levine Says:

    Anyone who has followed the insane trajectory of how copyright law has evolved would have to conclude that Warhol’s art was unlawful and that courts would indeed find him to be liable. This conclusion is a damning comment on the state of the law – not Warhol’s work.

    Now that Warhol has developed cache in popular culture, a star-struck judge might cynically contort copyright/fair use principles to carve out an exception for Warhol alone, but unfortunately, it would not be an exception which applied to unknown artists. To do that would effectively gut the entire concept of “derivative works” which copyright maximalists so rely on.

    The problem with fair use is that you can mold the argument to come to any conclusion you want either way.

Add a comment