<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/tag/fair_use+authorship+appropriation_art</link>
<title>PennTags Feed for /tag/fair_use+authorship+appropriation_art</title>
<description>PennTags Feed</description>
<item><guid isPermaLink="true">http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/12288</guid>
<link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/12288</link>
<title>National Coalitional Against Censorship: Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons; Sonnabend Gallery, Inc.</title>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Cardamone, Richard J. &lt;u&gt;Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons; Sonnabend Gallery, Inc.&lt;/u&gt;  National Coalition Against Censorship.  28 November 2006. .&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This case is an appeal of the earlier Rogers v. Koons decision.  Art Rogers took a photo titled &amp;quot;Puppies&amp;quot;, depicting a man and woman holding armfuls of puppies; the photograph became very popular on greeting cards.  Later, Jeff Koons took a postcard with the photo on it, removed the copyright notice, and planned the creation of a sculpture titled &amp;quot;String of Puppies.&amp;quot;  He specified that the sculpture be as similar to the original photo as possible, due to its use in an exhibition titled &amp;quot;The Banality Show&amp;quot; featuring art based on pop culture and commonplace images.  Although the photo was in black and white, the sculpture was in full color.  Three &amp;quot;String of Puppies&amp;quot; sculptures were sold for $367,000 each.  Rogers sued Koons for infringing on his copyright; Koons claimed his work was a parody of the original, and therefore a fair use.  The court found that the two works were substantially similar, that Koons had access to the &amp;quot;Puppies&amp;quot; photograph (and, in fact, actively worked to create a piece very similar to the original).  The court did not find an specific necessity for the use of the &amp;quot;Puppies&amp;quot; photo that was being commented upon explicitly by Koons' sculpture, and therefore did not uphold his claim of a parody.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This case is very significant for being one of the first instances in which appropriation art came to trial for a copyright violation.  Significantly - and keeping with the trend in many later cases - art using appropriated content lost.&amp;nbsp; Although this particular case had many of the hallmarks of a decision against fair use - willful, known copying, economic profit from the work, etc. - it still shows a tendency of the court to dismiss this kind of art as copyright infringement.&amp;nbsp; As I will be working with appropriated content on my final project, it is useful to know how court cases involving other appropriated-content works have turned out.   &lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
<item><guid isPermaLink="true">http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/12283</guid>
<link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/12283</link>
<title>Illegal Art | Creative Commons</title>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Slater, Derek.  &amp;quot;Take Another Little Piece of My Art.&amp;quot;  &lt;u&gt;Illegal Art | Creative Commons.&lt;/u&gt;  July 2003.  Creative Commons.  28 November 2006. &amp;lt;http://creativecommons.org/image/illegalart&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This article describes &amp;quot;Illegal Art&amp;quot;, a traveling exhibition which was displayed at the SF MOMA Artist's Gallery in July 2003.  The show contained pieces in a variety of media, with a full-length CD and several films and videos in addition to various two- and three-dimensional artworks.  Carrie McLaren, curator of the exhibition, began working on an appropriation art exhibit in response to unsuccessful challenges to copyright term extensions; the goal of the exhibit was &amp;quot;to make copyright's problems as real to the average person as they are to [the] featured artists&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The article attempts to place the &amp;quot;Illegal Art&amp;quot; exhibition in the context of the larger legal debate surrounding appropriation art by comparing the pieces in the show to famous copyright cases, such as the 2 Live Crew case.  The author also pays close attention to the economic constraints place on appopriation artists by licensing fees, cease-and-desist letters, and other tools of copyright permission holders.  Overall, the article sides firmly with the validity of the art and the necessity for its legalization - no surprise, considering that the article is written for the Creative Commons.  Succintly summarizing his point, Slater writes, &amp;quot;Had these legal limitations [on appropriation art] existed years ago, perhaps collage, rap, and Pop Art would have been sued to death before they ever had a chance to flourish. These days, the implication is that these appropriations are lower artforms, deserving legal treatment suited to petty thievery.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This article will definitely be very helpful for my project; it provides a general background on the use of appropriation art to comment driectly on copyright issues.  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
