代写范文

留学资讯

写作技巧

论文代写专题

服务承诺

资金托管
原创保证
实力保障
24小时客服
使命必达

51Due提供Essay,Paper,Report,Assignment等学科作业的代写与辅导,同时涵盖Personal Statement,转学申请等留学文书代写。

51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标

私人订制你的未来职场 世界名企,高端行业岗位等 在新的起点上实现更高水平的发展

积累工作经验
多元化文化交流
专业实操技能
建立人际资源圈

Rogers vs. Koons

2020-03-24 来源: 51Due教员组 类别: Essay范文

下面51due教员组为大家整理一篇优秀的代写范文- Rogers vs. Koons,供大家参考学习。这篇文章讲述的是罗杰斯和昆斯之间的案件可能是美国最著名的著作权案件之一。摄影师罗杰斯是原告,雕塑家杰夫·昆斯是被告。杰夫·昆斯是美国当代著名的流行艺术家和雕塑家。但他因作品使用他人作品的图像而多次被起诉侵犯著作权。在罗杰斯与昆斯的比赛中,杰夫·昆斯根据罗杰斯的黑白照片制作了一个雕塑,名为“小狗”,其中一对微笑着的夫妇抱着8只可爱的小狗。在杰夫·昆斯的作品中,《罗杰斯的照片》中人物和狗的一些变化是由杰夫·昆斯完成的。

Rogers vs. Koons

The case between Rogers and Koons may be one of the most famous cases on copyright in the United States. Photographer Rogers is plaintiff and Jeff Koons a sculptor is defendant. Jeff Koons is a contemporary famous pop artist and sculptor in the United States. But he has been sued several times for copyright infringement because his works use images of other people's works. In the case of Rogers vs. Koons, Jeff Koons had made a sculpture based on Rogers’ black-and-white photo with a name“ Puppies”, in which a couple with warm and genuine smile holds eight cute puppies. In the work of Jeff Koons, some alterations of characters and dogs in photograph of Rogers were made by Jeff Koons. He changed the color of puppies into blue, and added some white dots on their noses. In addition, the clothes color of the couple was also designed by Jeff Koons as orange and pink, which was different from the white and black effect of Rogers’ photo. Also, some flowers were added to the hair of the couple. Except those minor difference, it is noted that position of dogs and couple, their looks of those two works are basically the same. Thus, in 1992, Rogers sued Koons in a lawsuit. And finally, Koons lost in the case.

 

After Rogers sued him, Koons gave some rebuttal as follows. He thought that he only borrowed some elements in the photo, such as the couple and those puppies. If he was to be sued, it was supposed to be those figures in the photo to sue him. In addition, another major argument of him was that parody and copy were two totally different things. His parody of the photo of “ Puppies” was just another art form. In the face of Koons’ rebuttal, plaintiff also made some refutation. There were a lot of elements of similarity in those two works. Copyright law clearly stated that when the characters in the two dimensional photos were changed to three-dimensional version, the two-dimensional photos of the owner also had a copyright of three-dimensional version. Rogers had the copyright of black-and-white photo “ Puppies”. Also, works can not be simply defined as a spoof for the purpose. In addition, with the so called parody work, Koons obtained a huge profit, and thus he should be regarded as plagiarism. The second instance of the Court of the United States still maintained the original judgment to declare Koons guilty of copy, because in the sculpture " String of Puppies " he used the picture of the puppy as modeling foundation for his sculpture .

 

In this case, there is some advantage and disadvantage of argument of both sides.  At firs, there is a huge loop in the argument of Koons. If his parody of the photo of “ Puppies” is just another art form, it should not be used by him to gain some profits. But the fact is that he sold the sculpture with some basic elements from Rogers’ photo,  and won a huge successes in terms of monetary rewards. And also, there is a sharp distinction between Jeff Koons and Rogers in term of social status and fame in the field of arts. Before the case, Jeff Koons was already a contemporary famous pop artist and sculptor in the United States. But by contrast, Rogers was just a professional photographer. It is not quite usual for a famous pop artist and sculptor to make a parody of a basically little known photographer. And also, when the work of Jeff Koons was released before the pubic, he mentioned noting about the existence of Rogers’ black-and-white photo “ Puppies”. But the advantage of his argument was to limit the similar elements in two works as some figures, which was smart. An infringement of a copyright involves that a plaintiff must prove that he owns a copyright and that defendant copies it without consent. The advantage of argument of Rogers’ side was to emphasize the similar elements without consent, the huge profit gained by Koons and Rogers’ property rights of two works.  

 

The case has a huge effect on the production of art and future disputes. This case shows that copyright law is intended to encourage and protect original works of artists like Rogers. If Jeff Koons is declared to be free of charge of infringing on others’ property right , others’ photography can not be protected by copyright law. And the parody will experience a prevalence after this case, so the original author's idea can not be respected, and the interests of them will be damaged. Thus, this case can play a positive role of defending for encouraging and protecting original works of artists, especially some little known artists like Rogers.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明:原创优秀代写范文源自编辑创作,未经官方许可,网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为,未经同意的情况下,51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写、作业代写服务。   51due为留学生提供最好的作业代写服务,亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多代写范文提供作业代写服务,详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ800020041 

 51due为留学生提供最好的作业代写服务,亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多代写范文提供作业代写服务,详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ800020041

上一篇:“Spring Awakening ” 下一篇:A Discussion of World integrat