Christopher T.

Calhoun
Student Number: 0004619366
May 12th, 2015
FULL SAIL UNIVERSITY
Graphic Design Bachelor of Science Degree Program - online
Intellectual Property and Law - Mary Franke
2.4: Copyright Case Study
Objective:
In this assignment, the student will learn how read and analyze a legal case to determine the
important, relevant issues and the law involved in the courts decision.
Specifications:
Read Rogers v. Koons, from:
http://openjurist.org/960/f2d/301/rogers-v-koons
Check out the images involved here:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/image_rights.htm
Scroll down to the middle of the page under the heading Appropriation Art. You cant miss
the picture of the blue puppies.
Based on the case, answer the following questions:
1. Who are the parties involved in case, i.e. the plaintiff and defendant? List some details of
their work & background.
At the time of the case:
Plaintiff Art Rogers, 43, was a professional artist-photographer. He lived in Point Reyes,
California, where he also had a studio. He made a living from his photographic works. He
work was published, and featured in exhibitions across the U.S. and installed in museums.
Defendant Jeff Koons, 37, was an artist and sculptor living in New York City. He has a
Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from the Maryland Institute College of Art. He had previously
worked for the Museum of Modern Art in New York and as a broker. His work has been
featured in many exhibitions and galleries.
2. What was the issue in the case?
Koons created a sculpture that was literally derived from a Rogers photograph.
3. What was the original artwork that was central to the case?
Rogerss photograph Puppies (1980) was the original artwork.

1/3

4. What was the infringing artwork? Who created it?

The infringing artwork was Koonss String of Puppies (1998)
5. Did the defendant have permission to use the image? If not, how did he get a copy of the
image to reproduce?
The defendant did not have permission to use the image. Koons confirmed that the source
image of his sculpture was Rogerss photo, which he purchased from a tourist shop in 1987.
6. How involved was the defendant in reproducing the original artwork? How did he guide
the recreation of the photograph?
Rogers gave the photograph to artisans he hired to create the sculpture. He frequented their
studio weekly with directions, which stated numerous times to essentially copy the
photograph in detail.
7. How did the photographer learn of the use of his image to create the sculpture?
Rogers found Koons' infringement via Jim Scanlon, whom had originally commissioned
Rogers to photograph "Puppies". A friend of Scanlon's saw a photograph of the sculpture in
the Los Angeles Times; an article about a Koons exhibition.
8. What claims did the plaintiff photographer bring against the defendant sculptor? (What did
he sue him for?)
Rogers brought litigation to Koons over copyright infringement and unfair competition under
43(a) of the Lanham Act and state law.
9. What must the plaintiff prove in a copyright infringement lawsuit?
To prove copyright infringement, the plaintiff must prove ownership of copyright for the
infringed work and copying of the work by the defendant.
10. What are some of the elements of a photograph that the court considers original?
Elements that form originality in a photograph include its specific subjects, lighting, angle,
and the particular media, what is artistically communicated, and practically any specific
aspect of the work.
11. How does the court apply these elements to the photograph in the case?
The court found that Rogers created an original artwork and held a valid copyright for it.

2/3

12. What evidence does the court find that proves the unauthorized copying element?
The facts that Koons actually gave the photograph to the artisans he hired with written
instructions to copy the photo in exacting detail.
13. How does the court define substantial similarity?
"whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been
appropriated from the copyrighted work"
(Ideal Toy Corp. v. Fab-Lu Ltd., 360 F.2d 1021, 1022 (2d Cir.1966))
14. Does the court say that Rogers had a copyright in the idea of the photograph with the
puppies, or a copyright in the expression of that idea?
The court said that Rogers had a copyright in the expression of the idea.
15. What was the final decision- did the sculpture infringe the copyright in the photograph?
The sculpture infringed upon Rogers copyright of the photograph.

Deliverables:

You must type your answers in complete sentences and use your own words; spelling and
grammar must be correct. Your answer must be at least one sentence minimum. Fill in your
answer in this document after the question in blue text. You can quote the case to support
your answer, but dont just quote or paraphrase sections of the case AS your answer. If you
dont know some of the legal terminology, you can look it up on (http://dictionary.law.com).
Your assignment should be completed in PDF or Word format, and saved as
(lastname_firstname_copyrightcasestudy).
Due Date: 11:59 pm Friday of Week 2
Rubric (see general assignment rubric in Course References):
Each question is worth a maximum of 6 points; correct spelling and grammar are worth a
maximum of 10 points.

3/3