# Did Campbell's sue Andy Warhol? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 10, 2002, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-campbells-sue-andy-warhol/118153 "2002-07-10T01:50:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jeremy\_s\_Evil\_Twin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Jeremy\_s\_Evil\_Twin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeremy_s_Evil_Twin)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2002, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-campbells-sue-andy-warhol/118153/1 "2002-07-10T01:50:06Z")
When Andy Warhol drew that famous painting of the Campbell’s soup can, wasn’t he committing an egregious act of intellectual property theft? After all, the Campbell’s soup can logo is trademarked & owned by Campbell’s, is it not? Did Campbell’s ever sue to recoup damages? ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2002, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-campbells-sue-andy-warhol/118153/2 "2002-07-10T02:22:04Z")
I can’t imagine that Campbell’s would even have a reasonable case for trademark. Warhol was clearly not attempting to sell Campbell’s Soup or a competing product that would infringe on Campbell’s intellectual property interests. There would also have been an obvious First Amendment issue in attempting to sue Warhol for a clearly artistic use of the Campbell’s logo. Lawyers? Help? ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2002, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-campbells-sue-andy-warhol/118153/3 "2002-07-10T02:27:55Z")
After a brief period of WTF, Campbell’s decided it loved Andy Warhol. It meant that Campbell’s was an icon of American life. Whatever else Warhol was, he had his finger on the pulse of America. –Nott ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2002, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-campbells-sue-andy-warhol/118153/4 "2002-07-10T02:29:50Z")
The best I could do was [this message](http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1999-02/0079.html) from a mailing list that has the “official” position from the Andy Warhol Foundation: > [@](#): > > Andy Warhol did not originally seek permission from Campbell Soup Company to paint their soup cans. He apparently did not run into problems with the company who saw his usage as amusing and the freedom of expression. > > It was only after Warhol’s death, when the Andy Warhol Foundation began making licensing agreements with various manufacturers to use Warhol’s imagery on products, that there was an official legal agreement between the Andy Warhol Foundation and Campbell Soup Company. Presently, both parties own a stake in the copyright and neither party can make licensing agreements without the other party’s permission. Happily, we have a good relationship with them and are involved in various licensing deals with them covering a wide range of products. > > So, to answer your question, while he was alive, Warhol did retain the copyright to his own artworks but never addressed the issue himself as far as Campbell Soup Company was concerned. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2002, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-campbells-sue-andy-warhol/118153/5 "2002-07-10T02:49:24Z")
I think it is worth noting that a critical piece of any lawsuit is proving damages. That is how you collect your settlement. So, even if Campbells sued Warhol and (for arguments sake) won it would gain Campbells nothing. The court would essentially say that Warhol improperly used Campbell’s trademark and likely made them money than lost them money. Given that they can now go home content in the knowledge of a moral victory that cost them $100,000 in attorney fees and probably a boatload of bad press. Whoopee… I’m not positive but I think most courts would toss the case long before it got to that point if the plaintiff couldn’t show any actual damage in early legal procedures (maybe a real attorney will come by and enlighten us because IANAL). ---
**Author:** ![Neurodoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Neurodoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurodoc)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2002, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-campbells-sue-andy-warhol/118153/6 "2002-07-10T03:29:30Z")
If anything, Campbells should PAY Warhol (or his estate) for the excellent advertizing he provided…