The United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit lays out the Roger v. Koons case, and the arguments for each side.  Koons argues for the fair use arguement for parody, however, the court did not see the need to find parody in the photograph.  

Art Rogers, a professional art photographer, had been commissioned to make this photograph of a husband and wife holding the litter of puppies.  Jeff Koons, a prominent and controversial modern artist, found the postcard in what he described to be a tourist shop.  He apparently ripped off the copyright and sent it to his studio to be copied.  Koons argued that it was like many other postcards he owned, a product of mass culture.  And as one of the most successful artists of his time did not expect the less well known artist of this arguably mundane postcard to question him.

The document is central to understanding the depth of the case, in terms of the legal aspects and the rights of the artist, in this case two artists.  It begs the question and reality of why a more famous artist should have an advantage and monopoly over other less prominent artist’s works, and notes that this cannot be taken for granted.  This article goes into depth of how Koons’ work could be fair use and where the loopholes exist.  However, it is important to establish in law the ‘Ownership of Copyright in an Original Work of Art’, (I, § 8 of the United States Constitution) for a certain time period, which seeks to promote the progress of science and the arts.  Thus, Rogers’ has some claim over his work for a period of time, which he is entitled to.

Enough "substantial similarity" was found in Koons' three dimensional sculpture and the postcard, that the average person could see it, thus it was not transformative enough.  The court found copyright infringement for both this reason, and because Koons had removed the copyright notice unlawfully.