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.

 

nothing a good grease job, donation to charity or a few free watches can't fix.

lol @ hack artists saying no to any or all of the above

 

LOL--but just try to reverse this appropriate Andy's work for your new soup! Thsi is from the Warhol Foundation website:

"The Foundation rigorously protects itself against unauthorized uses of its copyrights and trademarks. Through outside counsel and in conjunction with Artists Rights Society and its sister societies worldwide, the Foundation aggressively pursues and takes appropriate action against all unlawful uses of its intellectual property."

https://warholfoundation.org/licensing/index.html

As you suggested, Larry, this is one of the times the only winners are the lawyers, which is, unfortunately, too often.

 

I admit I had to look that up to see what the heck it was.

 

Kill all the the lawyers...ws.

Have fun
Kfw

 

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

 

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.

 

Sorry ... jargon.

 

Thank you for that.

have fun
kfw

 

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.

 

Key is that Warhol was clearly commercializing, anyway they saw mutual benefit and decided not to sue. He was an advertising guy after all. As I’ve stated OP watchmakers had purchased a piece of art and were using it as raw material and planning to trade on the artists name and brand without permission. That is the crux.

 

I like what Konstantin Chaykin is doing definitely an art in the watch...

 

Ran across a lot of vintage pocket watches being auctioned on Ebay. These had very nicely done pre 1900's erotic artwork painted or cloisoned on the case lids.
One was a tasteful image of Arab belly dancers with breasts uncovered but others were very graphic Japanese pornographic images apparently from some ancient text.

A good watch is a work of art into itself. I don't care to see the beauty of the watch overpowered by artwork that was not part of the original design and has nothing to do with what the watch might be intended for.
Bird dogs on hunter cases for example fit perfectly with the intended purpose. Ships , fish or seabirds on a Naval or Yachting watch looks fine.
Odd formless splashes of color just don't cut it.

 

Amazing an argument can still be had despite the ruling from the Danish Court.

 

So you think a court granting an injunction is the end of all actions possible? Not even close...from the article:

"On Monday afternoon Thorleifsson and his partner were still discussing with their lawyer whether to reach a settlement, appeal the injunction, or to push ahead with a full-court case next month."

In cases like this they would have to decide if fighting it is something they can afford to do. There hasn't even been a full court case yet, just the issuing of an injunction that can still be lifted. Personally I hope they fight it, as I would like to see an actual outcome from the courts on something like this...

 

...and likely contributed to his hypertension.

 

"That'll be one million dollars please"

 

Here's another approach to the question: "Can a watch be art?" This is by the UK artist Ryan Gander: