Cases study 9 : Hoepker v. Kruger ( 2002 )

-
Related image

Case 
The plaintiffs Hoepker, a German photographer. 
Barbara Kruger, a well-known artist specializing in composite works combining photographs and texts. 
Hoepker and his model sued Barbara Kruger for copyright infringement and invasion of privacy due to Barbara Kruger take Hoepker’s photograph of the model holding a magnifying glass over her eye, and superimposed the words “It’s a small world but not if you have to clean it” on top of it. 
Kruger gave the Museum of Contemporary Art L.A. and the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York permission to publish his work in newsletters and brochures as well as featuring it on postcards, note cubes, magnets and t-shirts as well as in exhibit catalogues. 

Held 
The Court found that the model’s right to privacy was not violated. 
To succeed on a right to privacy claim in New York, one must prove the use of one’s name, portrait, picture, or voice. 
The Court found that Kruger had used Hoepker’s picture without consent within the state of New York but had not done so for the purposes of trade. 
Rather, Kruger’s work when displayed in books or in galleries, was pure artistic expression and not an advertisement. 
The Court dismissed the claim of copyright infringement. We cannot put all the blame on Kruger as Hoepker’s work was found in the public domain without a copyright protection. As the owner of an artwork, one ie responsible to protect it to avoid such consequences. Therefore, both are said to be at fault.

Copyright Act 1987 Section 36(1)
The Copyright Act 1987 states that an infringement occurs when a person does something without the licence or permission or consent of the copyright owner.

The copyright in a work is infringed when a person who:
(i)not being the owner of the copyright 
(ii)without consent or license of the owner of the copyright,

Copyright Act 1987 Section 13(2)
Certain conduct will not be considered as infringement of copyright. This provision provide defences to any allegation of infringement. 

FAIR USE
Where a copyrighted material is used for for purposes of non-profit research, private study, criticism, review or the reporting of current events. If such use is public, then it must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of the title of the work and its authorship.

Point of view 
Based on the case, I have learnt that we must be ethical. We need to be ethical because it defines who we are individually and as a society.From my point of view, both Kruger and Hoepker are at fault as Kruger used Hoepker work without permission although it was not for the purpose of trade. Yet, it is very unethical act. Meanwhile, Hoepker never protect his own work. He should protect his own work and get a copyright protection. As I mentioned earlier on the previous post, every artwork that we did for any kind of purpose, you must get permission or inform the owner to be a professional at your field of job.

References

http://ncac.org/resource/significance-hoepker-v-kruger/

http://ncac.org/resource/hoepker-v-kruger

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cases study 7 : Vanilla Ice vs. David Bowie/Freddie Mercury (1991)

-
Image
Case  In 1981, Queen and David Bowie released the song “Under Pressure”. The song reached number one on UK music charts.  In 1990, Vanilla Ice released his hit single “Ice Ice Baby” the beat the song was the same as “Under Pressure”. But Ice famously insisted that the two melodies are distinct because he added a beat between notes. A live version appears on the album Extremely Live, while a rap rock version appears on the album Hard to Swallow, under the title "Too Cold"  Queen and David Bowie sued the signer for sampling the beat to the song without permission or a license. Ice later claimed that this rationale was merely a joke. Representatives for Queen and Bowie weren't laughing and threatened a copyright infringement suit.  Interesting Facts ：Both songs, "Ice, Ice, Baby" and "Under Pressure" were number one hits. The song boosted the sales of the album which went to sell over 7 million copies. These songs were also...
Read more

Case Study 1 : Rogers v. Koons

-
Image
Photograph: Art Rogers – 1985; Polychrome: Jeff Koons – 1988 (both via The Design Observer Group ) About the Case  This case is about Photographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple (Jim Scanlon and his wife ) holding a line of puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. Internationally, the famous artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the banality of everyday items, ran across Rodgers’ photograph and used it to create a set of statues based on the image. Jeff Koons asked his assistants to copy as much detail as possible from the photographs. The only changes made during the transition were larger noses on the puppies, blue fur, and the man and woman had flowers in their hair. The sculpture was named "String of Puppies" and became a success. Reportedly, Koons sold three of the sculptures for $367,000.  Jeff Koons sold several of these structures, making a significant profit. Upon discovering the copy...
Read more

Cases study 2 : Jeff Koons vs. Andrea Blanch ( 2006 )

-
Image
Case  A famous visual artist, Jeff Koons, made a collage using various photographs for an exhibit commissioned by the Guggenheim.  Koons is being accused for copying part of a photograph taken by Andrea Blanch, a fashion photographer.Blanch's photograph appeared in the fashion magazine Allure, and depicts a woman's legs reclining on a man's lap in an airplane cabin. Koons cropped and re-oriented the photo, before including it in a painted collage among other pairs of women's legs. Blanch bring the case to the court.  Held  The judge found Blanch did not have the copyright over the Gucci sandal therefore the only thing that could be copied was the females leg which could not be deemed original in order to be protected by copyright. The district court granted Koons holding that the use of Blanch's photograph in his collage constituted fair use, and not copyright infringement. Copyright Act 1987 Section 36(1) The Copyright Act 1987 states that ...
Read more