4 ms·
The soup can was not used by Warhol to sell soup. The Prince art was being used in an article about Prince. And that point was a major part of the Supreme Cou
by Jiro 3y ago
The soup can was not used by Warhol to sell soup. The Prince art was being used in an article about Prince. And that point was a major part of the Supreme Court decision.
- cushpush 3y agoFascinating distinction.
- pclmulqdq 3y agoThis is the big distinction. The "transformation" of the soup can is just one of the four factors in the fair use analysis, and I might argue one that weighs against Warhol compared to Campbell's own marketing material.
- 93po 3y agoInterestingly it was used by Campbell's (not Warhol as you said) to sell soup. It's not clear to me if they licensed it from Warhol/his estate.
- onetokeoverthe 3y ago[dead]
- eru 3y agoThat's interesting! I would have expected these things to matter for trademark law, but not for copyright.