In the context of Campbell's Soup Cans, analyze the Relation to Warhol's art of the Campbell's Soup Company.

Although it would be widely announced in the May 1962 issue of Time magazine, as late as March 1962 Warhol sought secrecy for his Campbell's Soup project, stating his hope "that the Campbell Soup Co. knows nothing about these paintings; the whole point would be lost with any kind of commercial tie-in."  During the first week of the July 1962 Ferus Gallery exhibition, Campbell's Soup CEO William Murphy sent a team of legal representatives to evaluate the "use and violation of trademarks". Initially, Campbell Soup Company considered legal action, but decided to evaluate the public reaction to the art first. Within months of the original 1962 exhibition, Campbell's Soup Cans–derived printed attire was in vogue in Manhattan high society. Later that year, the company decided to give Warhol a $2000 ($19349 in 2022) commission for a Campbell's tomato soup can painting as a gift for Oliver G. Willits, its retiring chairman of the company's board of directors. In 1964, Campbell's sent Warhol free cans as a sign of respect. In January 1967, the company took legal action against Warhol for using a soup can label, without consent, for an Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, show announcement. Also in 1967, Campbell's sent a letter to Random House, which was on the verge of publishing a Warhol book, regarding Campbell's legal perspective on his art, noting that Warhol's work would not be considered in conflict with their corporate intellectual property as long as he did not paint the logo on actual soup cans. The letter also included a formal denial that Campbell's had ever had any influence on Warhol's artistic subjects. That same year, the company produced the promotional Souper Dress (pictured right) that could be purchased for $1 ($8.78 in 2022) and 2 soup can labels. In 1985, the company also commissioned Warhol to paint its dry soup mixes, which were new at the time. In 1993, the company bought a Warhol tomato soup can painting to hang in its corporate boardroom at its headquarters, and by 2012 the company had a licensing agreement with the Warhol estate to use Warhol's renditions on a variety of merchandise. That year, the company celebrated the 50th anniversary of the series by partnering with Target Corporation to release four different Warhol-inspired, limited-edition designs of condensed tomato soup cans (pictured left) in its United States stores.Although Campbell's never pursued litigation against Warhol for his art, United States Supreme Court justices have stated that it is likely Warhol would have prevailed. E.g., in a majority opinion, Stephen Breyer noted in a computer-code case that "An 'artistic painting' might, for example, fall within the scope of fair use even though it precisely replicates a copyrighted 'advertising logo to make a comment about consumerism'". Regarding another Campbells Soup Company case (Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, which relies on [Luther] Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.), Neil Gorsuch stated, "Campbell's Soup seems to me an easy case because the purpose of the use for Andy Warhol was not to sell tomato soup in the supermarket...It was to induce a reaction from a viewer in a museum or in other settings."
Neil Gorsuch CEO Target Corporation intellectual property Manhattan William Murphy Random House board of directors tie-in United States Supreme Court Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston Andy Warhol trademark label Campbell's Soup Campbell Soup Company exhibition Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Contemporary Stephen Breyer right Ferus Gallery Time