Intellectual property is gained for safeguarding the new invention from being duplicated and misused by unauthorised personnel or companies. The reason of intellectual property is introduce to encourage more innovations which ultimately solve the problems of humankind and provides a significant solution in the form of the product made. Product inventors take exclusive rights of marketing the product for a period to avoid infringement by another entity and use the exclusive period to make phenomenal profits.
Copyright infringement is about one entity making misuse of the exclusive copyrights of another without permission and then making commercial gains, which unfortunately is a loss to the maker or creator of the original piece of work. This essay will understand and discuss the case Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2nd Cir. 1992) where one entity infringes the copyright of another and uses the same to make personal profits without acknowledging the original creator of the piece. In addition, it will study the implications of the decision of the court on similar cases and the industry as a whole and how the parties involved reacted and defended their own positions.
Copyright is an intellectual property rights awarded to original creators of the work. They can prohibit its misuse, reproduction, use for personal gain, and from being sold or duplicated. Rogers v. Koons case study gives us all possibilities of infringement and the defences available to the infringer and the owner. The copy of the picture from the post card was almost identical to the sculpture made by Koons who advised his sculpture to copy from the post card. He also tore off the part mentioning the copyright sign on the post card of Rogers. Koons argument that the copy made as way of parody on society depicting the deterioration of quality products, due to mass production was not agreeable since he did not give anything to society and in fact made financial gains from selling it.
Koons was held as an infringer and Rogers was favoured in the court’s decision. Following the order, the media industry is alert about the use of similar pictures and has mainly deviated from using identical pictures, but encourage more creativity in producing original and get it copyrighted. However, complexity of identifying the infringement remains a big challenge in the digital age, where millions of pictures seem to be similar and sold in markets.