I'm thinking of course of the Lawsuit against the Harry Potter Lexicon by J. K. Rowling and Warner Brothers.  People often say the Lexicon is ripping off JKR with the alphabetical encyclopedia of Pottermania, and "how dare Steve Vander Ark do that"?  "Why doesn't he write his own books with his own characters?" goes another familiar argument.

But it's just not that simple, and there are other ways to see this in terms of creativity that is "derivative" of someone else's work, yet also respectful and new in it's own way.

For those who don't know the work or career of Andy Warhol, he was one of the most influential artists of the Sixties, in both painting, film, and style. He believed that there are "iconic" things in our society to which everyone in society has an emotional conection.

People like Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor and Jackie Kennedy became his subjects as he painted variations of their faces with Xerox-like precision, in different screen-printed colors. Just as magazines and movies reproduced faces over and over, so did his art. He copied famous photos of them from the newspaper, but no newspapers ever sued him. 

Elvis and Chairman Mao never sued Warhol either.

If he was alive today, he would be painting Britney, Amy Winehouse, Barach Obama, and perhaps even J.K. Rowling.   He would certainly be drawn to her famous creations - Harry of course, but perhaps also Sirius Black, Luna Lovegood, or Severus Snape?  Certainly Dumbledore in pastel elegance. He would probably say they belong to everyone because they are all so famous. They are icons in our society now.

Was he ever sued by Marilyn Monroe? I don't think so. :) Of course she died young. But Jackie Onassis also never sued him, and we know she had millions of dollars at her disposal. Elizabeth Taylor probably really liked him, since I've never heard she called an attorney and said "Go check on this Warhol guy. He's plastering my face all over an art gallery and only I control my image." 

Perhaps those ladies were all classy enough to understand that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Were Warhol's paintings "Creative" in the sense that they were "original"? Or was he just "living off of other people," as we often hear the phrase in the Harry Potter Community? Well, they weren't in the original colors, but they were all the same repetitious likenesses. They were in some ways "bigger" than the original people and subjects, and yet he captured the idea that there are different "interpretations. And he was democratic - he left in the flaws, and didn't "retouch" anything. 

Was that Art or Reality?  Was he a copycat, a leach, a criminal, or just a fan?

Was he ever sued by the soup company for painting his famous Campbell's Soup Cans that now sell for millions? I had to find out. The answer - No. In fact, Warhol and Campbell's Soup had a working relationship, and they didn't bother each other. He sold his Campbell's Soup paintings for money. That's right ~ cold hard cash. The actor Dennis Hopper paid $100 for an early version. As far as I know, Campbell's did not get a cut of Hopper's C-Note. Later, he would ask Campbell's for copies of soup labels,which cracks me up. And they even commissioned a painting from him, for which I presume they paid money.

Did the soup cans belong to Andy Warhol? Did the copyright for the label belong to him? No. Did people enjoy those paintings - of course! Did Campbell's benefit because they never sued him and let him make his art? Absolutely.

And notice the name on his Museum. It's not called the "Campbell's Soup Museum" or the "Marilyn Monroe Gallery."

It is called The Andy Warhol Museum.  He's the guy that done it all, is why.