Greenberg, Lynne A. “The Art of Appropriation: Puppies, Piracy and Post-Modernism.”  Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal.  11 (1992):  1-33. 

Greenberg’s article discusses visual art making practices connected with post-modernism and how these conflict with copyright. The article looks at neo-conceptual traditions, such as appropriation art, a serious art movement in which the artist “works by lifting images from artistic images of the past and creating replicas of these images …By confiscating the ideas, images, and even styles of the masters, the Neo-Conceptual artists radically defy the modernist ethic of individual authorship, the authenticity of expression, and artistic uniqueness as a primary goal of the avant-garde.” (p. 14). 

Greenberg offers detailed analyses of the work of Levine and Koons.  With respect to Rogers v. Koons, Greenberg notes that the fair use doctrine was not accepted by the court and that the court was hostile to the art making strategies of appropriation artists.  The court failed to see the way in which his use of Rogers’ photograph was necessary for Koons to comment upon contemporary society. The appellate court looked instead to the fair use exception for parody and found Koons’ argument lacking on this point.  For Greenberg, the Koons decision may bring a halt to appropriation art unless the court takes a fresh look at the “comment and criticism” aspect of fair use.

Greenberg, Lynne A. “The Art of Appropriation: Puppies, Piracy and Post-Modernism.”  Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal.  11 (1992):  1-33. 

Greenberg’s article discusses visual art making practices connected with post-modernism and how these conflict with copyright. The article looks at neo-conceptual traditions, such as appropriation art, a serious art movement in which the artist “works by lifting images from artistic images of the past and creating replicas of these images …By confiscating the ideas, images, and even styles of the masters, the Neo-Conceptual artists radically defy the modernist ethic of individual authorship, the authenticity of expression, and artistic uniqueness as a primary goal of the avant-garde.” (p. 14). 

Greenberg offers detailed analyses of the work of Levine and Koons.  With respect to Rogers v. Koons, Greenberg notes that the fair use doctrine was not accepted by the court and that the court was hostile to the art making strategies of appropriation artists.  The court failed to see the way in which his use of Rogers’ photograph was necessary for Koons to comment upon contemporary society. The appellate court looked instead to the fair use exception for parody and found Koons’ argument lacking on this point.  For Greenberg, the Koons decision may bring a halt to appropriation art unless the court takes a fresh look at the “comment and criticism” aspect of fair use.