Recommended Posts


  1. I think the difference with Warhol is that by 1966, he had a pretty good chunk of change to his name; which of course is why the suits were filed. There was something to be had.

    Having some money and canvas to dispose of made paying the “shut-up-and-go-away” settlement easier than fighting in the courts. As near as I can tell, there was never a finding. He always settled; even if it was after the trial started.

    Just because a civil suit was filed is not indication of any wrongdoing. Paying a settlement is not an acknowledgment of anything other than the defendant feeling (for any number of reasons) that the settlement is cheaper/easier than even a victory in the courtroom.

    I’d be extremely interested to hear what the actual terms of the settlement were. I suspect they were a lot less than the damages/settlement sought today.

    Totally bizarre that Disney didn’t go after him…

    • @Will Seberger, I imagine it’s because Disney didn’t need the money.

Comments are closed for this article!