Landes, William M. "Copyright Protection and Appropriation Art." The Arts and Humanities in Public Life. Http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf1999/landes.html.

The author begins by bringing up many issues that surround appropriation art. These problems include when art is based on renowned copyrights images, when images are borrowed without appropriate art intent, and when images are used for educational purposes. Instead of lamenting that the grey area of copyright can never be solved, this author takes a different approach. Landes proposes a solution to all these problems. Not necessarily a solution, but a belief that current copyright law can decide these matters.

The article delves into the economics of copyright. Landes discusses how without copyright protection artists would never be able to recoup losses to create art and therefore would be working without incentive. This would lead to a culture devoid of meaningful expression. He argues that there needs to be an appropriate balance between too little and too much protection. This balance would ensure that efficiency and creativity are promoted.

This piece brings up many questions about how appropriation art exists among law, society, and culture. It makes us question the benefits and downfalls of copyright protection. Like many copyright articles, it discusses the Koons v Rogers case. From its analysis, we gather that not all appropriation art should be protected under fair use. Additionally, we see that if it was, courts would be put in the unsuitable position of judging what art is and what is not.

Ames, E. Kenly. "Beyond Rogers v. Koons: A Fair Use Standard for Appropriation." Columbia Law Review 6th ser. 93 (1993): 1473-526.

The article begins by detailing the origins of Rogers v. Koons: Koons making a sculpture inspired by Roger's photograph Puppies. Koons lost the trial after courts failed to see reason to his fair use by parody defense. After describing the loss of Koons in court, the author posits several questions that are essential to my paper. Ames asks, "Is the use to which Koons puts Roger's photographs mere piracy of someone else's images? Or is it art in some more meaningful sense? If it is more than piracy, does it deserve the protection of copyright law, and, if so, then how should that protection be afforded to balance appropriately the interests of the original creator, the viewing public, and the appropriator?" This article attempts to answer these questions by giving an overview of how contemporary art came to appropriation as a technique and by explaining how copyright law exists within the current art world. Additionally, the author discusses several issues created out of the ongoing dialogue between copyright and artists. To begin with, it seems as if too often artists edit their art around copyright and the potential of being sued. The author argues that that appropriation should be protected under fair use. However, Ames sees the current fair use doctrine as inadequate in protecting appropriation artists. Lawmakers and artists are put into a grey area too often. Ames discusses new guidelines and rules that need to be developed to protect appropriation, while hushing copyright holders who are all too eager to sue. The author concludes by developing a standardized method for protecting appropriation artists. This method, an adaptation of the four factor analysis, is based on protecting the copyright holder's future markets instead of safeguarding infringement rights in work. The latter is founded on the idea that an appropriator's work will not substantially affect the value of the copyright holder's work.

Rogers v. Koons was a landmark decision. This article shows how the court case brought up a myriad of questions for our 21st Century society. When writing my research paper, it will be important to be able to explain not just what these questions are, but what many contemporary thinkers have responded with. Ames proposes a creative solution to the many different problems created when law does not sufficiently protect appropriation artists. Perhaps most important to my paper, Beyond Rogers v. Koons: A Fair Use Standard for Appropriation presents the debate by showing what great value society can get from appropriating.

Patry, William. "Appropriation Art and Copies." Http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/10/appropriation-art-and-copies.html. 20 Oct. 2005. 1 Apr. 2009.

This blog begins by giving a definition of appropriation from London's Tate Gallery: "Appropriation art raises questions of originality, authenticity, and authorship, and belongs to the long modernist tradition of art that questions the nature or definition of art itself." Among artists the author names as descendants of the appropriation tradition are Picasso, Braque, Duchamp, Fountain, Dali, Johns, Rauschenberg, Koons, and Levine. The author argues that even though the practice of appropriation is quite old, courts have not been "receptive to fair use appropriation art claims." He cites Rogers V. Koons as an example of this. The article finds two problems in this case: First, a failure to understand that a judgment of "unfair" use does not mean that the court is an art critic; second, the presupposition that just because the art community believes something is art, it can't break copyright law. The author ends the article by noting a divide in the artistic community: those who support appropriation and those who fight against it. Patry finds the divide most fascinating because of the fact that artists who have always been supportive of moral rights undermine themselves with appropriation art (in that, it denies a special connection between originality and the author).

The blog entry proves most valuable to my thesis. It fuels the questions I started off with by giving perspective to the whole appropriation controversy inside and outside the spectrum of copyright. When discussing the existence of appropriation in the art world, it will be important to cite past artists of the tradition and current artists' opinions of ownership.

 

This academic journal is published by Cambridge University Press and is a commentary on the first source listed above.  Laing highlights the most important points of Frith’s work, offering his professional opinion in a disagreement, agreement, or clarification in the very least.  A notable quality of this journal is the fact that is it printed in Great Britain; therefore it offers the insight of a foreigner analyzing American copyright law in contrast to that of the United Kingdom.  This perspective draws attention to aspects of the law that may not been previously considered. 

            The essay is short and concise, wasting no words in a full examination of Frith’s work.  He calls into question Frith’s assertion that the copyright system is an “aspect of the competition between different music producers…and…different music users,” and claims that there is much more to it than that.  He acknowledges the complexities in the system in that they do not clearly favor or target neither the creator, nor the performer, nor the consumer.  Slightly outdated, this essay was written before any sampling lawsuits were completed in the courts (at least in Great Britain) however, this serves as a strength instead of a weakness, however, seeing as his calculated predictions can be measured against the results to gauge how scholars viewed the subject.

            This journal is not only an intellectual work in itself, but it is also an intelligent deciphering of some of Frith’s most significant assertions.  This serves the reader well as some of his reading can be confusing and seem contradictory at parts.  In reading Frith’s work, I will be sure to keep Laing’s journal on hand for color and clarification in order to most accurately comprehend the discussion and facts presented.

 

This book is an objective look at the various implications of digital sampling and copyright infringement in the music industry.  It offers numerous examples of instances in the production of music that range from simply “causing a stir” to reaching a major court decision – and it provides the results of each.  It has been written and edited by a collection of scholars, specializing in a number of fields and commenting from a variety of backgrounds and points of view. 

            The book does not necessarily pose an argument as much as it clarifies the dispute between the recording industry and the digital sampling community.  It pits the copyright laws against the “creativity” of new musicians.  The book takes neither stance but rather gives adequate attention to both.  On one hand, it states that copyright is often blamed for curtailing creativity in music, in that it prevents the production of completely new songs simply because of their use of a small sample of a previous work.  Conversely, the authors acknowledge that copyright is also seen as a catalyst for creativity, offering incentive to create fully original work instead of somehow deriving it from a pre-existing source. 

            This dichotomy is essential to my argument seeing as it offers equal views and examples on the subject of digital sampling.  The cases identified in the text are sound evidence of the evolution of the copyright law as a result of the development of the digital sampling technologies and practices.  As a result of these case studies, the book also calls to mind a number of musical examples that can not only be analyzed further, but can also be used to find other examples or to gain further insight into the specific case in question. All of these items are discussed in a case-by-case basis with commentary following and this formal structure provides an easy reference into any single instance of copyright infringement that results from the practice of digital sampling.  This source will prove invaluable in the completion of the final paper, seeing as it outlines all of the surrounding facts and intricacies of copyright law as it pertains to music.  In deciding whether or not a sampling is within the bound of copyright law, this book has been cited numerous times, and will be upon completion of the paper. 

 

This book is a guide – as its title might suggest – to all things digital when it comes to music.  It serves as not so much an analysis on copyright in the music industry as a whole, but rather as a set of legal and technical guidelines so that one may participate in the consumption and production of such music without infringing on copyrights.  In other words, it describes for the reader all of the ins-and-outs of the digital music industry so that one may know where in the law his practices may reside. 

            Hill’s book has entire chapters devoted to the assessment of what is legal, what is not, and how to go about participating in said sanctioned musical practices.  He identifies a list of acceptable file-sharing websites, and offers his own commentary on why others are forbidden, as well as why these are acceptable.  The book begins with a basic introduction into the technologies and methods used in the digital realm and then goes deeper to list available services and to comment on the merits of various practices.  His advice is clear and he condones no illegal activity, yet he makes clear why certain people might be motivated to circumvent copyright laws in terms of digital music.  He further lists specific file types and programs that are used in these practices and he identifies useful software.  He finishes the book with another broad chapter about the “Conscience of Digital Music” as a whole as well as his prediction of the future of the industry.

Hill’s technological knowledge is a key aspect of this book that has allowed me to delve deeply into the details of digital music production and sharing.  He explains these issues in simple terms, while still conveying the complexity of their implications.  In writing this final paper, the technological terms and details from this book will provide much-needed expertise in a field that I am not necessarily well-versed in.  In my analysis of the acceptability of digital sampling, I must first know how the practice works and what techniques are involved; this book offers me this knowledge, which is key to reaching a conclusion in my final paper on what sampling is acceptable within copyright law.

 

This book is at the opposite end of the spectrum, so to speak, from the previously-mentioned source.  In this book, Williamson and the other authors discuss music from an expertise on the art itself.  There is no mention of digital music, sampling, file-sharing, or other similar topics to be found anywhere in the book.  In their places are excerpts from sheet music and examples of lyrics.  They offer their expert commentary on subjects ranging from Chopin to Snoop Dogg, from Dante to the Beatles, and each is approached with the same level of intellect and scholarship.  Multiple chapters cover the creation of music from scratch – as told from the songwriter’s point of view, and it is this unique perspective that offers a new form of insight into the practice of digital sampling.

Another important factor in this work is the chapter entitled “Mimesis, Gesture, and Parody in Musical Word-Setting.”  This chapter not only explores the implications that a parody has on an original work but sets the framework for parody with an historical narrative about its origins.  At first, this seemed to be irrelevant to the topic of digital sampling and copyright law, but after further inspection, it became apparent that this knowledge is very important to the understanding of parody and its stance in copyright law. 

Words and Music discusses at length many different styles and genres of modern music, primarily “gangsta,” or hardcore, rap.  This genre is a unique example because not only is it arguably the heaviest on lyrical content out of all kinds of music, but also because it is notorious for its sampling practices and is quite possibly the realm in which the most copyright infringement cases take place.  Reading a scholarly assessment on such genres is especially helpful for this topic seeing as it provides a critical, but not condemning eye on the subject.  This is all-to-rare in today’s academic and scholarly publications, and to have a source such as this is very useful in the terms of this research paper. 

 

One look at the pages of this book and it is immediately known that it is unlike any other sources to be used for this essay.  The pages are printed with a hole in the center and the outline of a CD on each one – clearly a modern work by a modern author.  This is the argument for all of the merits of sampling and Dj-ing music for a crowd as told from the perspective of an established DJ, Paul Miller (DJ Spooky).  Despite its casual tone and appearance, however, this book is filled with intellectual commentary on the state of music and the art of remixing today. 

            Quoting anyone from Woodrow Wilson to George Clinton, Miller offers a wide range of examples to support his stance on the art of Dj-ing.  He believes that sampling music is a form of creation, putting a musical piece of work together in a different way in order to achieve what DJs refer to as “flow.”  He asserts that sampling is both the result and catalyst for new music.  “You can never play a record the same way for the same crowd,” he writes, calling the digital sample a “recycling” of sorts, a “repurposing” of an old melody or riff. 

Miller’s unique stance as a DJ himself, combined with the casual tone of this narrative offer the reader a conversation with a man deeply involved in the digital music industry.  As mentioned above, he does indeed advocate the benefits of the art, but he also recognizes the dangers of “taking sampling too far.”  Seeing the digital music industry from his eyes in this way is a welcome insight into yet another point of view on this topic.  This will only add to the complex standpoint that I will be able to take in writing this essay. 

 

Seemingly a sequel to his previous work, Sound Unbound is compiled with the help of numerous contributors and reads much more like a scholarly account than its predecessor.  It delves further into the intricate aspects of Dj-ing and remixing: sampling, appropriation, plagiarism, and various forms of musical technology from tape loops to video opera.  The list of contributors ranges from science fiction writers to media activists, from rappers to composers, and this wide range of expertise offers an even better insight into the intricacies of the music industry in the digital age that the first book provides.

Most important to the focus of this paper, however, remains to be the testimony and work of Paul Miller.  Once again, his experience as a professional DJ offers an exclusive look into the life of someone who makes a living off of sampling and remixing, however the supporting chapters from his colleagues offer a much stronger foundation for his more up-to-date commentary on the industry.  In addition, the work of novelist Jonathan Lethem on appropriation and plagiarism is a good complement to Miller’s chapters on sampling and civilization. 

Contrary to the last book by Miller, Sound Unbound explores more deeply the legal implications of “stealing” another’s song or work, and the distance that one must go in order to gain such negative attention from the authorities or at least the original creators.  Furthermore, the book includes a mix-CD compiled by Miller himself, made up of a variety of artists commonly classified as “avant-garde,” which only serves to enhance the written works that he includes in the book.  It gives the reader something real and interactive – a way to experience what all of the scholars are talking about first-hand.  It is the well-roundedness of this complete work and the many facets of the modern music industry that it covers from the inside-out that is the reason this is so helpful in the construction of my final paper.

In the April 1992 case of Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons, Koons infringed copyright in his work String of Puppies which was a three dimensional color copy of a photographic original of Rogers' that he found on a postcard in a tourist shop. The sources I have researched question the boundaries of art and when it is and is not fair use, and in which ways the guidelines can really have a great effect in shaping this gray area. Koons is sometimes referred to as an appropriation artist: an artist who quotes elements from other works and creates a new version of the original. In the case I choose to focus on he does not alter the change enough, it is arguably an exact copy of the original with minor changes. I use a later case in Koons' career - Blanch v. Koons - as a source to highlight what is fair use, and the development of our understanding of it. In my final paper I would like to use this as a comparison. Identity and Koons' call to parody are also central to the fair use argument and thus I have chosen some sources that discuss these important aspects, as a means to both strengthen and weaken Koons' argument (that his work is based on parody).

Koons won this case as the court argued that Koons' use of Blanch's work did not breach the fair use doctrine.  It is necessary to look at this later case in order to understand the court ruling of the earlier case: Rogers v. Koons.  By comparing the two cases we get a clearer idea of what fair use is and the complexities which are involved.  Moreover, the later case marks a more developed understanding, and that there is indeed change and progress within art law.

This article takes the 1992 case of Rogers vs. Koons, and, analyzes the effect it has had.  Fair Use more often than not puts the artist/author/lawyer/judge etc. in a gray area, wherein delineating the boundaries is very tricky.  It discusses the development of appropriation as an art form, and necessary guide lines that must be developed in order to understand and adhere to copyright laws.  Piracy is a huge point of controversy in the art world, as art is subjective and difficult to monitor.  The Rogers v. Koons should not be overlooked as anything less than a landmark in the history of art for bringing up some issues that are central to our everyday existence, especially in the western world where we are saturated by the mass media, mass culture and commercialism. 

Here, Chicago Law School lays out the problems and relationship between "copyright law, borrowed images, and appropriation art".  Appropriation art borrows images from the mass media and elsewhere and incorporates them in new ways into art.  The motive is to change the way we look at that object.  There are various problems to the theory including: "A constructs several identical sculptural works based on B's copyrighted photograph or comic book character." which applies directly to Koons, and his work, String of Puppies.  Apart from not being that transformed from the original, Koons' version of the photograph most likely did not take away from the financial market of the original, as the intent of this artistic work is entirely different - it is intended for display in a gallery, or in someone's home.  However, Koons argued that it was fair use on the grounds that he was making satirical comment on mass culture in society.  The court did not buy this defense, as his work did not apply to directly to the appropriated work.  This tag is useful in making us question what exactly constitutes appropriation art, and the relationships between the borrowed images and how they are used.  The fact that appropriation art is part of the history of art acknowledges it as a valid genre or term.  However, Koons it testing those boundaries to the point that he is criticized that he is making a mockery of art.  Appropriation art has other drawbacks in that it goes both ways in promoting new art but at the same time limiting it.  Artists are less likely to come up with their own original images.  The article also underlines that we cannot merely label something as 'art' and therefore expect it to be exempt from copyright.  This would leave judges in a extremely subjective and difficult position of deciding what is art.

This article from Art Law department at Harvard explains that artists have certain rights within the creation of their works.  One-way is through appropriation art: the quoting of work from other artists.  Artists borrows elements from the original that may stay completely unchanged, however, the new work uses the original to create something new.  Appropriation art took place as far back as Raphael’s Judgment of Paris c.1515, which was since lost but one of the artist’s employees, Raimondi, made an etching of it, which proceeded to be copied over and over.  Three centuries later, Manet took part of this image and inserted it into his painting, Le Dejeuner Sur L’Herbe.  A century later, Picasso translated Manet’s work in a series of paintings.   Thus, artists’ have always relied on being inspired and influenced by earlier works.

The Roger v. Koons (1992) case, wherein Jeff Koons commissioned a sculpture of Art Roger's photograph postcard, and in so doing, violated Rogers’ copyright of his original work, is regarded as the primary modern day case of appropriation art.  Koons’ work copies the original exactly, although the puppies are painted a vivid blue, have bulbous noses, and the two figures are decorated with three flowers, which does not occur in the original.

Koons has been in a number of cases in which he has tried to argue for parody or satire, for example, in order to deem his work transformative enough from the original, and thus fair use.  Appropriation art is a major get-out-of-jail free card, that gives artists the ‘artistic license’ that is arguably essential in creating great works, as exemplified by the fact that the most well recognized artists have been doing this for centuries.