tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post116191502087159538..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: Koons Affirmed (Don't Blanch)William Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1166246602103482202006-12-16T00:23:00.000-05:002006-12-16T00:23:00.000-05:00best suitehttp://www.lingeries.co.in/best suite<BR/>http://www.lingeries.co.in/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1166246493667726672006-12-16T00:21:00.000-05:002006-12-16T00:21:00.000-05:00best ssitehttp://www.cruise1.biz/best ssite<BR/>http://www.cruise1.biz/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1161972776729700222006-10-27T14:12:00.000-04:002006-10-27T14:12:00.000-04:00I too think it is a commendable decision. Blanch, ...I too think it is a commendable decision. Blanch, unlike Rogers, did only involve portions, and in a collage (or "collaged"), so it was easier for the court to see the transofrmative nature. There are many in the art world (and many art lawyers) who think that the Second Circuit in Rogers v. Koons missed the way in which appropriation art is also transformativeWilliam Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1161969583269358482006-10-27T13:19:00.000-04:002006-10-27T13:19:00.000-04:00Thank you for calling attention to yet another int...Thank you for calling attention to yet another interesting copyright decision. The Second Circuit’s decisions regarding <I>Rogers v. Koon</I> and <I>Blanch v. Koon</I> are interesting in my mind because they involve the issue of how courts perceive and deal with issues of visual art. The <I>Rogers</I> decision found in favor of the photographer largely on the grounds that the Koons sculpture was not sufficiently transformative. While it was indisputably a copy, it was not a “slavishly recreated” copy as indicated by the concurring opinion in <I>Blanch</I>. The Rogers photograph shows a wholesome couple holding seven cute puppies whereas the Koons sculpture depicts a dorkish couple holding seven puppies with mature but empty expressions. Koons made the argument in <I>Rogers</I> that the sculpture was transformative because he was trying to express a different message than the underlying work. A major factor in the difference between <I>Rogers</I> and <I>Blanch</I> appears to be that the court found the use of the feet from the Blanch photograph transformative because they were recast in a different position and that the important background elements (man’s lap, aircraft cabin) were not copied. In other words, the Blanch photograph was used more as a reference than as the foundation for the painting.<BR/><BR/>It is interesting (and commendable) that the majority opinion shows respect for both the photographer and the artist, and disparaged neither their works nor their motives. The majority even took pains to disagree with the lower court’s description of the photograph as “banal.” In fact, Koons’ testimony would seem to controvert that the photograph was banal because he essentially said that he needed to copy the photograph, as opposed to coming up with his own vision of a fashion photograph, to obtain the right effect in the painting. I thought it unfortunate that the concurring judge suggested that the plaintiff was seeking a windfall recovery. The ability to license the rights to photographs is the cornerstone of how many photographers earn their livelihood and warrants a modicum of respect even though someone might think that a photographer is overreaching in a particular instance.Berne Baby, Bernehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09590515288104143874noreply@blogger.com