CASE 1. Rogers vs. Koons

CASE 1. Rogers vs. Koons

Background

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 simply entitled, Puppies, and was used on greeting cards and other generic merchandise.

Jeff Koons, an internationally known artist, found the picture on a postcard and wanted to make a sculpture based on the photograph for an art show on the theme of banality of everyday items. After removing the copyright label 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, though the puppies were to be made blue, their noses exaggerated, and flowers to be added to the hair of the man and woman.

The sculpture, entitled, String of Puppies, became a success. Koons sold three of them for a total 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, but attempted to claim fair use by parody.

Opinion of the Court

The Court found both "substantial similarity" and that Koons had access to the picture. The similarity was so close that the average lay person would recognize the copying, a measure for evaluation. Thus the sculpture was found to be a copy of the work by Rogers.

On the issue of fair use, the court rejected the parody argument, as Koons could have constructed his parody of that general type of art without copying Rogers' specific work. That is, Koons was not commenting on Rogers' work specifically, and so his copying of that work did not fall under the fair use exception.

Outcome

The court found the similarities between the 2 images too close, and that a “typical person” would be able to recognize the copy. Koon’s defense was rejected under the argument that he could have used a more generic source to make the same statement — without copying Rogers’ work. Koons was forced to pay a monetary settlement to Rodgers.

Significance

This is one of those famous cases that encompassed a larger issue in the art world, the issue of appropriation art. Can you build upon another’s work to create your own original piece? And if you do so, does that constitute derivative work? It also brought up the issue of photography as art, was photography just a documentation of the world, or is it a creative and artistic product? Neither of these issues was entirely answered by the case, of course, but it has also become a reference used in many cases afterward.

You can parallel this with vector-tracing a photograph for your design. Are you creating a derivative work that subtracts value from the original artist?