Posted on 03/29/2022 3:12:57 PM PDT by nickcarraway
I thought Campbell’s Soup would be suing him.
Why did you think that?
Thank gawd they aren’t wasting time and effort on trivial things,,
,, like,,,,say,,
Election/voter fraud.
Spit.
Really?
Unlikely. You can’t buy advertising like that.
She was never jealous of his success, she just said, that all the kids called him 'sissy"
Personally, I think his "art" is crap, although Campbells soup got a ton of free publicity.
Derivative works are subject to the original copyright. (Just ask Vanilla Ice.)
This will be interesting.
This may be the end of memes.
Do more people actually buy more soup because of Warhol?
He was supposed to be religious.
This is what we’re worried about?
Of all the very important cases they take a pass on and ignore but this is somehow more pressing?
We’re circling the bowl guy’s.
“Really?”
Yes.
I don’t know. But sometimes going after someone with a lawsuit will cause your own PR more damage than just ignoring the arguable copyright violation. IIRC that was the case with Kodak and Paul Simon. They figured that the bad PR from suing Simon would be more damaging than the copyright case. And Simon was saying good things about Kodachrome.
On the other hand waiting 40 years to sue is ridiculous. Copyrights are supposed to be defended as they happen. Else you can lose the copyright.
I have no doubt he was, although I can't remember if he was Slovien or Slovak, just a story from my mother's neighborhood.
My mother also said she would get a dime for starting up a stove from an Orthodox Jewish neighbor family on Friday night.
If Goldsmith took the picture while working on assignment for a Newsweek, then the rights to the picture would belong to Newsweek. If Warhol used the photo published by Newsweek, then Newsweek would be the copyright holder and the aggrieved party.
If it was never published then how did Warhol get the picture? Did he buy it? If so Warhol would own the rights.
I don’t see how Goldsmith has standing.
Additionally if he didn’t notice the infringement for 40 years, then there’s insufficient evidence of a copyright infringement. And if he did notice it 40 years ago, then he waived the copyright by waiting too long to complain.
But SCOTUS doesn’t have time for thousands of election fraud whistle blower witnesses? At least elite owner copyright law will be interpreted.
The same Supreme Court that refused to hear an appeal of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision regarding election law violations? Nice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.