Art Rogers, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Jeff Koons Sonnabend Gallery, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that requiring a defendant to turn over infringing works \is an equitable remedy issued under the broad powers vested in a trial judge\
• concluding that a previous work by Koons was not a parody because “the copied work must be, at least in part, an object of the parody” and it was “difficult to discern [in Koons’s work] any paro dy of the photograph ... itself’
• explaining that courts must first define what is being parodied in order to properly consider a fair use defense
• explaining that the protectible, original elements of a photograph include “posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evok- ing the desired express, and almost any other variant involved.”
• stating that the photograph at issue was a creative and imaginative work
• noting that “[substantial creative effort went into both the composition and production” of a photograph where the photographer, inter alia, selected the light, the location, and the arrangement of the couple and their eight puppies on a bench

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).