A Detailed Analysis of Copyright Infringement in Rogers v. Koons Case

This case study analyzes the copyright infringement case of Rogers v. Koons, focusing on the legal arguments presented and the court's decision. The case involves a photographer, Rogers, who sued Koons for copyright infringement, claiming Koons used his photograph in a sculpture without permission. The analysis explores the issue of whether Koons's actions constituted infringement or qualified as fair use, specifically a parody. The assignment references the Copyright Act of Bahrain, highlighting the country's adherence to the Berne Convention and its laws regarding copyright protection. The court's analysis centers on whether Koons's use was in good faith and whether it served a commercial purpose. Ultimately, the court ruled against Koons, determining that his use was for commercial gain and not a legitimate parody under fair use principles, thus constituting copyright infringement. The conclusion reinforces the importance of respecting copyright and the limitations of the fair use defense when commercial intent is present.

Running head- COPYRIGHT
Copyright
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1.

1Copyright
Rogers v. Koons,
960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992)
Facts
According to the facts of the case, Roger was the plaintiff and the photographer who
instituted the suit. He had the copyright of a black and white photo in which a man was
holding a series of puppies. This photo was used by the defendant in various products and
greeting cards. Koons removed the copyright notice and did few changes and later sculpted it
and named the sculpture as “String of Puppies”. Finding that sculpture Roger filed a suit
against Koons for the infringement of copyright. However, Koons did not accept it and
claimed that it was a parody of the original work and took the defence of fair use against the
claim of Roger.
Issue
The primary issue that was raised in the problem is the following:
Whether the act of Koon can be considered as an infringement or he shall get the defence
under the parody of fair use?
Rule
The rule or the legislation used for the analysis of the case is the Copyright Act of
Bahrain. Copyright is documented and safeguarded in Bahrain concerning the “Copyright
Law No. 22 of 2006” as modified by “Law No. 5 of 2014 (Copyright Law)”. Bahrain is a
member of the Berne Convention that arrays the fundamental values that include the national
action and the involuntary fortification of the copyright works (Aufderheide & Jaszi 2018).

2Copyright
The parody of fair use is used as a defence in cases where a third party use a trademark of
another person in any commodity or goods and services for commercial and not for executing
the artistic work (Schaumann, 2015). The defence of fair to be used in cases where the
trademark is used for artistic purposes.
Analysis
As per the observation of the court held that the defendant should not get the defence
under the parody for the fair use. As per the rule, this defence could be only applicable in
cases where the trademark or the copyright is used for the artistic and knowledge purpose in
good faith. However, in cases where the image is used for commercial purpose, the rule shall
not apply. It was observed by the court that the intension behind the usage of the image was
not in good faith (Bently & Sherman, 2014). He purposely removed the copyright claim
under the image. This states that he knew the image having the copyright. So it was his lousy
intention for purposely and intentionally using the image and making copies of it for
commercial purpose. This act by Koon shall be considered as a wrongful act as he did it with
mala fide intention of using the image for his profit and commercial purpose. Hence it is
evident from the circumstances that the image was solely profit-oriented and was for
commercial purposes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be stated that the act by Koon where he purposely removed the
copyright notice and using the image for commercial purposes and his profit is considered to
be copyright infringement. Further, he shall not be eligible to get the defence for parody
under fair use as the usage was for commercial purpose hence cannot be considered as fair.

3Copyright
Reference
Aufderheide, P., & Jaszi, P. (2018). Reclaiming fair use: How to put balance back in
copyright. University of Chicago Press.
Bently, L. and Sherman, B., (2014). Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, USA.
Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992)
Schaumann, N. (2015). Fair Use and Appropriation Art. Cybaris Intell. Prop. L. Rev., 6, 112.