Art Rogers 1985 Polychrome Jeff Koons
| Rogers v. Koons | |
|---|---|
| Courtroom | Us Courtroom of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
| Full case name | Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons; Sonnabend Gallery, Inc. |
| Argued | October 3, 1991 |
| Decided | Apr 2, 1992 |
| Commendation(s) | 960 F.2d 301; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 5792; 22 U.Due south.P.Q.2nd (BNA) 1492; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 26,893; 20 Media L. Rep. 1201 |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent history | Cert. denied, 506 U.Southward. 934 (1992) |
| Procedural history | Summary judgment granted in part to plaintiff, 751 F. Supp. 474 (S.D.Northward.Y. 1990); amended on rehearing, 777 F. Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) |
| Property | |
| An artist who reproduced a photograph as a 3-dimensional sculpture for auction as high-priced fine art could not claim parody as a defense for copyright infringement, when the photograph itself was not the target of his parody. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Circuit Judges Richard J. Cardamone, Lawrence Warren Pierce, John K. Walker, Jr. |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Cardamone, joined by Pierce, Walker |
| Laws applied | |
| 17 U.Southward.C. § 101, et. seq. (Copyright Act of 1976) | |
Rogers 5. Koons , 960 F.2d 301 (second Cir. 1992),[1] is a leading U.S. court case on copyright, dealing with the fair use defense for parody. The The states Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit constitute that an artist copying a photograph could exist liable for infringement when at that place was no clear demand to imitate the photograph for parody.
Background [edit]
Art Rogers' photograph (left), Jeff Koons' work (right)
Art Rogers, a professional photographer, took a black-and-white photo of a man and a woman with their arms full of puppies. The photograph was merely entitled, Puppies, and was used on greeting cards and other generic trade.
Jeff Koons, an internationally known artist, constitute the picture on a postcard and wanted to brand a sculpture based on the photograph for an art show on the theme of banality of everyday items. Subsequently removing the copyright characterization from the postcard, he gave it to his assistants with instructions on how to model the sculpture. He asked that as much detail be copied as possible,[two] though the puppies were to exist made blue, their noses exaggerated, and flowers to be added to the hair of the man and adult female.
The sculpture, entitled, String of Puppies, became a success. Koons sold three of them for a full of $367,000.
Upon discovering that his picture had been copied, Rogers sued Koons and the Sonnabend Gallery for copyright infringement. Koons admitted to having copied the image intentionally, simply attempted to claim off-white use past parody.
Stance of the Courtroom [edit]
The Court found both "substantial similarity" and that Koons had access to the moving picture. The similarity was and then close that the average lay person would recognize the copying, a measure for evaluation. Thus the sculpture was found to exist a copy of the work by Rogers.
On the issue of fair employ, the court rejected the parody argument, as Koons could take constructed his parody of that general type of art without copying Rogers' specific work. That is, Koons was non commenting on Rogers' piece of work specifically, and then his copying of that work did not autumn under the fair use exception.
Accolade [edit]
The Court of Appeals determined that there were issues of fact and remanded the issue of damages to the defendant
References [edit]
- ^ Rogers five. Koons , 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992).
- ^ Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit (1992-04-02). "Art Rogers, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Jeff Koons Sonnabend Gallery, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, 960 F.2d 301 (2nd Cir. 1992)". 960 F.2d 301 Nos. 234, 388 and 235, Dockets 91-7396, 91-7442 and 91-7540.
In his "production notes" Koons stressed that he wanted "Puppies" copied faithfully in the sculpture. For instance, he told his artisans the "piece of work must be only like photo — features of photo must be captured;" later, "puppies need detail in fur. Details — Just Like Photo];" other notes instruct the artisans to "keep man in angle of photograph — balmy lean to side & mildly forrard — aforementioned for woman," to "go along woman's big smile," and to "keep [the sculpture] very, very realistic;" others state, "Girl'south olfactory organ is also small. Please make larger equally per photo;" another reminds the artisans that "The puppies must have variation in fur as per photograph — not just big expanse of paint — variation equally per photo." (accent supplied).
External links [edit]
- Text of Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992) is available from:CourtListener Google Scholar Justia OpenJurist
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons
0 Response to "Art Rogers 1985 Polychrome Jeff Koons"
Post a Comment