In 1996, photographer Henri Dauman sued the Estate of Andy Warhol (the "Estate"), the Andy Warhol Museum (the "Museum"), and The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts (the "Foundation") on three counts of copyright infringement. The controversial image central to all three claims was of Jaqueline Kennedy at President John F. Kennedy's funeral, where Dauman was on assignment for Life magazine (whose parent company was Time Inc.). The photograph was featured in the December 6, 1963 issue of Life magazine, which contained a notice stating that reproduction without permission was strictly prohibited.

The year following Kennedy's assassination, Warhol created a series of artworks starring Jacqueline Kennedy. Warhol allegedly used silkscreens of source images from newspapers and magazines, including Dauman's photograph, to make his famous pieces. Dauman learned about Warhol's unauthorized use of his photograph when he saw "16 Jackies" in the New York Times after selling at Sotheby's for $418,000. According to Dauman's complaint, his photograph appeared in at least 45 Warhol works. While the first count of copyright infringement concerned Warhol's artistic use of Dauman's image, counts two and three were about a book and calendar published by the Museum and Foundation which also featured the photograph.

‍
The Estate, Museum, and Foundation moved to dismiss all three counts for failing to state copyright infringement claims. They argued that, while the complaint indicated that Dauman took the photograph, the image was published in Life magazine and registered by Time Inc., the complaint did not explicitly state that Dauman owned the copyright. The Southern District of New York likened the facts of this case to Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc. to conclude that an author is still afforded copyright protection after publishing their work in a magazine bearing a copyright notice. The Southern District of New York highlighted the circumstances: the magazine purchased the first publication rights, and the author clearly had no intention of submitting their work into the public domain. The motions to dismiss the complaint were denied, the case ultimately settled, and the settlement terms remain unknown.