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 book expresses clearly why Koons defense lost on the account of parody as fair use.  It goes through the four factors of fair use and explains why it breaches the doctrine comparing String of Puppies directly with the original black and white photograph by Rogers, Puppies.  It clarifies first and foremost that the copied work is not a parody of the original, as no one would have any idea of the object, Puppies photograph that Koons is parodying.  Secondly, fair use is more applicable to factual than fictional work, and Roger's work is a fictional piece.  The third factor, the amount and substantiality used are certainly breached, because Koons work is an almost exact copy of the black and white photograph.  Fourthly, whether the copy would affect the market of the original also seemed to fail meeting fair use standards.

Most importantly it clarifies why String of Puppies is not parody, and it points out why Koons v. Rogers is such an important case in the discussion of parody and what is fair use.

Here, Chicago Law School lays out the problems and relationship between "copyright law, borrowed images, and appropriation art".  Appropriation art borrows images from the mass media and elsewhere and incorporates them in new ways into art.  The motive is to change the way we look at that object.  There are various problems to the theory including: "A constructs several identical sculptural works based on B's copyrighted photograph or comic book character." which applies directly to Koons, and his work, String of Puppies.  Apart from not being that transformed from the original, Koons' version of the photograph most likely did not take away from the financial market of the original, as the intent of this artistic work is entirely different - it is intended for display in a gallery, or in someone's home.  However, Koons argued that it was fair use on the grounds that he was making satirical comment on mass culture in society.  The court did not buy this defense, as his work did not apply to directly to the appropriated work.  This tag is useful in making us question what exactly constitutes appropriation art, and the relationships between the borrowed images and how they are used.  The fact that appropriation art is part of the history of art acknowledges it as a valid genre or term.  However, Koons it testing those boundaries to the point that he is criticized that he is making a mockery of art.  Appropriation art has other drawbacks in that it goes both ways in promoting new art but at the same time limiting it.  Artists are less likely to come up with their own original images.  The article also underlines that we cannot merely label something as 'art' and therefore expect it to be exempt from copyright.  This would leave judges in a extremely subjective and difficult position of deciding what is art.

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?