I would assume that if it’s used for a commercial use (I.e selling it for millions) Campbell would want rights for it?
In: 29
[removed]
Technically, he couldn’t. He never got Campbell’s permission for using their product in his art. Campbell eventually agreed because they realized that it was free advertising. Similarly, his famous piece with Marilyn Monroe is another example because he took that photo from another artist, again without permission. If I remember correctly, Warhol was sued multiple times by various people for copyright infringement.
You have to understand it in terms of the times advertisement. The first “commercial” on TV broadcast in the 1950s. So Campbell’s looked at Warhol’s painting as free advertising. At the time, it was a novelty and didn’t sell for millions and millions so there wasn’t much for Campbell’s to recoup in terms of financials.
They wrote Warhol and thanked him. https://lettersofnote.com/2010/07/30/i-hear-you-like-tomato-soup/
In today’s world it could be a different story. Products pay millions to be included in movies, but then would sue if someone else produced a similar item for sale… in terms of the soup label the case is complicated bc Warhol wasn’t selling soup… he was selling a recreation of the soup label – an interpretation of it not even a replica…
We see this today in the music industry with “sampling” of other works…
Because it didn’t actually infringe on Campbell’s trademark. Warhol wasn’t trying to sell a competing brand of soup, and the public wasn’t likely to believe that Campbell’s was endorsing Warhol’s art.
[He’s still getting sued.](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/andy-warhol-foundation-loses-lynn-goldsmith-copyright-lawsuit-1955399)
>Celebrity photographer Lynn Goldsmith has won her copyright lawsuit against the Andy Warhol Foundation on appeal.
>
>The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a 2019 ruling from New York’s federal court finding that Andy Warhol had made fair use of Goldsmith’s 1981 photograph of Prince when he created the “Prince Series.” Goldsmith appealed that verdict, arguing that the Warhol artworks were not a transformative use of her image.
>
>“We agree,” judge Gerard E. Lynch wrote. “The Prince Series works are substantially similar to the Goldsmith Photograph as a matter of law.”
>
>The Warhol Foundation plans to appeal the ruling, reports ARTnews.
It’s going to the Supreme Court this year!
[The Velvet Underground also sued and settled with his foundation.](https://pitchfork.com/news/50958-the-velvet-underground-reaches-settlement-with-andy-warhol-foundation-over-iconic-banana-image/)
[Way back in 1966, a photographer sued and settled with him over his flowers paintings.](http://lacmaonfire.blogspot.com/2017/09/moca-adds-warhol-flowers.html)
But specifically regarding Campbell’s Soup? The story goes that they considered it, but they saw it was actually positive marketing and helped their sales, so they embraced it instead.
Back when it was made, people and companies were a little more lenient with things. Nowadays every corp is really hardcore about it.
As long as Campbell Soup does not complain then it is good.
Pursuing any action would probably be bad press for the company and difficult to prove that this action caused any loss of revenue to the company.
Latest Answers