Agree. It's probably too much to speculate that she bedded some of her subjects, and definitely too far out to posit she would have sued them for relationship issues if she could have, right? So in lieu of that...we can sue the dead for relicensing a (much better and more interesting) derivative of our boring photograph (no offence to photogs in general, I think they're great, and photog is art, can be. but doesn't mean you can't have classless ones like her tho, or how she's acting here).

Taking this all the way to the SC to sue Warhol estate? Has to be a money play. Just, no class. I guess that's what you do when you make works that you can't sell for that much anyway, you "make up the difference" to what you think you're entitled, with a suit.

Probably she was never happy that she only got 400 for the license and Warhol got 10K for the editorial work. This is her "revenge" to "make it right."

I don't like any of this: Warhol made art but this person's using the court to prosecute about that. Ugh...just so ugly.