In the April 1992 case of Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons, Koons infringed copyright in his work String of Puppies which was a three dimensional color copy of a photographic original of Rogers' that he found on a postcard in a tourist shop. The sources I have researched question the boundaries of art and when it is and is not fair use, and in which ways the guidelines can really have a great effect in shaping this gray area. Koons is sometimes referred to as an appropriation artist: an artist who quotes elements from other works and creates a new version of the original. In the case I choose to focus on he does not alter the change enough, it is arguably an exact copy of the original with minor changes. I use a later case in Koons' career - Blanch v. Koons - as a source to highlight what is fair use, and the development of our understanding of it. In my final paper I would like to use this as a comparison. Identity and Koons' call to parody are also central to the fair use argument and thus I have chosen some sources that discuss these important aspects, as a means to both strengthen and weaken Koons' argument (that his work is based on parody).

This article takes the 1992 case of Rogers vs. Koons, and, analyzes the effect it has had.  Fair Use more often than not puts the artist/author/lawyer/judge etc. in a gray area, wherein delineating the boundaries is very tricky.  It discusses the development of appropriation as an art form, and necessary guide lines that must be developed in order to understand and adhere to copyright laws.  Piracy is a huge point of controversy in the art world, as art is subjective and difficult to monitor.  The Rogers v. Koons should not be overlooked as anything less than a landmark in the history of art for bringing up some issues that are central to our everyday existence, especially in the western world where we are saturated by the mass media, mass culture and commercialism. 

This Blog compares the Koons v. Blanch case and the Koons v. Rogers case.   The latter he lost because the work was not transformative enough and therefore not fair use.  In the Koons v. Blanch case, Koons used part of Andrea Blanch's Silk Sandals by Gucci photo in his painting entitled Niagra.  It was considered fair use because he took only the legs, added a heel, inverted the orientation and added color, thus, transforming the original and giving it a new meaning and identity.  Moreover, it did not threaten to harm the market of the original artist.

The blogger points out that although in the Koons v. Blanch case, Koons was not breaching copyright, it is diffcult to take from a case and apply it elsewhere in deciding what is fair use, which is what deems it such a gray area.  The blog argues against fair use as "the real issue is that fair use doctrine is a red herring that we should just dump."  Who decides when something is transformed enough.  For example, had the orientation of the legs in Niagara been tilted to a slightly lesser degree, or had the heel not been added, perhaps this would not have been enough.  One can argue that in String of Puppies, Koons has changed the scale, color, medium etc.  But in this example it was not enough and Koons lost.  The question is, when is it enough? And who is at liberty to decide?