Editing The Velvet Underground & Nico (section)

===Front cover lawsuit===
In January 2012, the "Velvet Underground" business partnership (of which John Cale and Lou Reed were [[General Partner|general partners]]) sued [[Andy Warhol#Warhol Foundation|the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.]] in the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York]] after the Foundation licensed the cover's banana design to Incase Designs for use on a line of [[iPhone]] and [[iPad]] cases. The complaint involved [[copyright infringement]], [[trademark infringement]] and [[unfair competition]].<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Velvet Underground Sue Andy Warhol Foundation For Copyright Infringement|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/velvet-underground-sue-andy-warhol-foundation-for-copyright-infringement-20120111|magazine=[[Rolling Stone]]|first=Matthew|last=Perpetua|date=January 11, 2012|access-date=August 18, 2017|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170819020712/http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/velvet-underground-sue-andy-warhol-foundation-for-copyright-infringement-20120111|archive-date=August 19, 2017}}</ref> <!--The partnership's complaint contained four claims: one involving [[copyright law]], and three relating to [[trademark law]].{{citation needed|date=August 2015}}-->

Alleging that the Foundation had earlier claimed it "may" own the design's copyright, the partnership asked the court for a [[declaratory judgment]] that the Foundation did not have such rights.<ref name="court">{{cite web|title=Opinion & Order|url=http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=219|publisher=Velvet Underground v. Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc., 12 Civ. 00201 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2012)|access-date=September 7, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130408141320/http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=219|archive-date=April 8, 2013}}</ref> In response, the Foundation gave the partnership a "Covenant Not to Sue"—a written and binding promise that, even if the partnership and certain other parties continued to use the design commercially, the Foundation would never invoke its professed copyright ownership against them in court.

On the Foundation's motion, [[Alison J. Nathan|Judge Alison J. Nathan]] severed and dismissed from the lawsuit the partnership's copyright claim. According to Judge Nathan, the [[Constitution]] allows [[United States federal courts|federal courts]] to decide only [[Case or Controversy Clause|"Cases" or "Controversies"]], which means ongoing or imminent disputes over legal rights, involving concrete facts and specific acts, that require court intervention in order to shield the [[plaintiff]] from harm or interference with its rights. The judge held that the partnership's complaint fell short of that standard because even if the Foundation continued to claim ownership of the design's copyright—and even if its claim was invalid—that claim would not legally harm the partnership or prevent it from making its own lawful uses of the design. The partnership did not claim that ''it'' owned the design's copyright, only that the Foundation did ''not''. Since, according to the court, the Foundation promised not to sue the partnership for any "potentially copyright-infringing uses of the Banana Design", the partnership could continue using the design and there would be no legal action that the Foundation could take (under ''copyright'' law){{efn|Note, however, that the language of the covenant covers only ''copyright'' lawsuits and claims; it does not cover trademark or [[unfair competition]] claims, which, as noted below, the Foundation has indeed filed against the Partnership.}} to stop it. And if, the court concluded, the partnership could continue with business as usual (as far as ''copyright'' was concerned) regardless of whether the Foundation actually owned the design's copyright, a court decision would have no practical consequences for the partnership; it would be a purely academic (or "[[Advisory opinion|advisory]]") opinion, which federal courts may not issue. The court therefore "dismissed without prejudice" the partnership's request that it resolve whether the Foundation owned the design's copyright.<ref name="court"/> The remaining trademark claims were settled out of court with a confidential agreement, and the partnership's suit was dismissed in late May 2013.<ref>{{cite news|last=Mervis|first=Scott|title=Andy Warhol Foundation, Velvet Underground settle lawsuit over iconic banana|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/ae/music/andy-warhol-foundation-velvet-underground-settle-lawsuit-over-iconic-banana-689728/|access-date=30 May 2013|newspaper=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette|date=30 May 2013|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130605173233/http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/ae/music/andy-warhol-foundation-velvet-underground-settle-lawsuit-over-iconic-banana-689728/|archive-date=June 5, 2013}}</ref>