下面ESSAYLW教員組為大家整理一篇優秀的代寫范文- Rogers vs. Koons，供大家參考學習。這篇文章講述的是羅杰斯和昆斯之間的案件可能是美國最著名的著作權案件之一。攝影師羅杰斯是原告，雕塑家杰夫·昆斯是被告。杰夫·昆斯是美國當代著名的流行藝術家和雕塑家。但他因作品使用他人作品的圖像而多次被起訴侵犯著作權。在羅杰斯與昆斯的比賽中，杰夫·昆斯根據羅杰斯的黑白照片制作了一個雕塑，名為“小狗”，其中一對微笑著的夫婦抱著8只可愛的小狗。在杰夫·昆斯的作品中，《羅杰斯的照片》中人物和狗的一些變化是由杰夫·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.
<标题> 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.