Well it's not that they didn't pay this time... they did not have the right to use that work because the license for the Warhol works was for the one time initi

Well it's not that they didn't pay this time... they did not have the right to use that work because the license for the Warhol works was for the one time initial use on the cover of the magazine. But that wasn't really the issue. The issue was whether or not the commercial use of the work for, essentially the same purpose (depicting Prince on the cover of a magazine) could be "transformative".