Was Warhol Ever Sued?

- - Blog News

Patricia Caulfield, the photographer whose work was used as the basis of Warhol’s flower prints sued in November 1966 and settled for cash and artwork.

via Rich Nolo’s Patent, Copyright & Trademark Blog and Photo Attorney.

There Are 2 Comments On This Article.

  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…