Pirate? A serious question.

Exactly, they never messed with him.
i guess what is considered contemporary cultural history.
Probably more so than Joy. He did mass produce the image and make loads
of money.
Joy just has the one painting. Right Joy?



On Monday, March 1, 2004, at 05:04 PM, patrick lichty wrote:

> Seriously,
>
>

I think you're missing a point.
Legislation, culture and the market are vastly different now.
In the 60's companies were still into production, versus the
brand-centered maketing of today (among other differences).
To assume the climate for litigation and intellectual property was the
same in 1966 is a grave mistake.


Patrick Lichty
Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
355 Seyburn Dr.
Baton Rouge, LA 70808

—–Original Message—–
From: Lee Wells [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:26 PM
To: patrick lichty
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Pirate? A serious question.

Exactly, they never messed with him.
i guess what is considered contemporary cultural history.
Probably more so than Joy. He did mass produce the image and make loads
of money.
Joy just has the one painting. Right Joy?



On Monday, March 1, 2004, at 05:04 PM, patrick lichty wrote:
Seriously,



Under the intellectual property laws of contemporary society, where does
Warhol's soup can and Brillo box fall?

Could he be sued for using the trademark without clearance?



Patrick Lichty

Editor-In-Chief

Intelligent Agent Magazine

http://www.intelligentagent.com

355 Seyburn Dr.

Baton Rouge,LA70808




_________

Lee A Wells
mobile: 917 723 2524
studio: 718 349 7951

[email protected]
http://www.leewells.org

Pat wrote:

> Under the intellectual property laws of contemporary society, where does
> Warhol’s soup can and Brillo box fall?

> Could he be sued for using the trademark without clearance?

(Does Brillo still exist?)

:(

J

Um, so far just one naughty painting. I swear.

I'm beginning to thimk only artists bother to sue artists, with a few
exceptions… LOTS of artists have done the warhol thang since warhol..
have they been sued? probably not… I'm guessing. okay, I'm tired.


On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, patrick lichty wrote:

> I think you're missing a point.
> Legislation, culture and the market are vastly different now.
> In the 60's companies were still into production, versus the
> brand-centered maketing of today (among other differences).
> To assume the climate for litigation and intellectual property was the
> same in 1966 is a grave mistake.
>
>
> Patrick Lichty
> Editor-In-Chief
> Intelligent Agent Magazine
> http://www.intelligentagent.com
> 355 Seyburn Dr.
> Baton Rouge, LA 70808
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Lee Wells [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:26 PM
> To: patrick lichty
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Pirate? A serious question.
>
> Exactly, they never messed with him.
> i guess what is considered contemporary cultural history.
> Probably more so than Joy. He did mass produce the image and make loads
> of money.
> Joy just has the one painting. Right Joy?
>
>
>
> On Monday, March 1, 2004, at 05:04 PM, patrick lichty wrote:
> Seriously,
>
>
>
> Under the intellectual property laws of contemporary society, where does
> Warhol's soup can and Brillo box fall?
>
> Could he be sued for using the trademark without clearance?
>
>
>
> Patrick Lichty
>
> Editor-In-Chief
>
> Intelligent Agent Magazine
>
> http://www.intelligentagent.com
>
> 355 Seyburn Dr.
>
> Baton Rouge,LA70808
>
>
>
>
> _________
>
> Lee A Wells
> mobile: 917 723 2524
> studio: 718 349 7951
>
> [email protected]
> http://www.leewells.org
>

On Monday, March 1, 2004, at 08:04 PM, patrick lichty wrote:

> Seriously,
> Under the intellectual property laws of contemporary society, where
> does Warhol's soup can and Brillo box fall?
> Could he be sued for using the trademark without clearance?

ABSOLUTELY!

Even then. Didn't he have to pay for the right to do Mickey Mouse? I am
pretty sure he did pay licensing for the mouse. It was either the mouse
or Superman. Anyone have an AW book? Now I've gotta now!

That said, under the current interpretations of the law, he wouldn't be
able to show those paintings. I mean, Napier has about 5 Barbie
paintings –the pre-history of the Distorted Barbie– and we wouldn't
be able to include that in any kind of retrospective unless we paid
Mattel or went to court.

l i z a
=========================
www.culturekitchen.com