Campbell’s for example would have been within their rights to sue Andy Warhol, however they reconsidered when they realized how many free consumer impressions his art was getting them. In fact, they sent him free product.
Retired from a global role in a big FMCG this year.
Retired from a global role in a big FMCG this year. Doing some consulting and conference speaking.
Retired from a global role in a big FMCG this year. Doing some consulting and conference speaking.
What does that really mean? No. Really. Are you baffling me with bullshit? It's simple. Art for art or art for money.
Have fun
Kfw
I admit I had to look that up to see what the heck it was.
It means that I worked for huge companies with valuable brands and managed their marketing agencies and contracts. I understand what intellectual property is and why it must be protected. If you are going to market your product using somebody’s works and name you need to have a commercial understanding with them. This is why the artist won his case. In this legal case its Art for Money but I’m sure the Artist was also incensed by the cavalier actions taken by the defendants so Art For Art too. BTW we have quite a few attorneys on OF.
If this had been a mutual conversation, it could have been done for mutual benefit. Instead, I would say the the publicity and legal expenses have been a sad episode for both sides. Campbell’s for example would have been within their rights to sue Andy Warhol, however they reconsidered when they realized how many free consumer impressions his art was getting them. In fact, they sent him free product.
Actually no... from a legal perspective. Under art use he can use the cambels logo.
in the case of the OP it’s a different issue, I’d have to see the danish law that applied. It would be murky in the US depending on how it would be marketed is where it sits in my knowledge.
Amazing an argument can still be had despite the ruling from the Danish Court.
