Copyright infringement has its nuances.
-------------
From:
http://www.netartreview.net/logs/2004_03_14_backlog.html#107934566080035392
Probably the best known example is the case Rogers vs Jef Koons, in which Rogers sued Koons for using his copyrighted image "Puppies" for the work "String of Puppies". Jeff Koons lost the case and it's interesting to know why. Here I quote from the article "COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND APPROPRIATION ART"
by William M. Landes:
"... is appropriation of mass media images by the artist Jeff Koons who was the defendant in three similar copyright cases in the 2nd Circuit. In the best-known case, Rogers v. Koons, the defendant purchased a note card displaying a photograph of a group of puppies with their owners, tore off the copyright notice from the card, ...........
.......and hired an Italian foundry to make four sculptures based on the photograph. Since Koons admitted copying, the only issue on appeal was if his copying was a fair use.
Counting against fair use is that Koons added little to the original image except for changing the medium and adding color. Indeed, altering the image would have defeated his purpose of changing the meaning of the image by putting it in a different context. On the other hand, Koon's sculpture is not likely to damage the market for the copyrighted photograph. The products are in different markets and won't compete for sales. Yet the plaintiff's business was licensing photographs so upholding Koon's fair use defense could potentially eliminate an important source of revenue to photographers and result in adverse incentive effects.
Koons' principle argument for fair use was that his work should be privileged as a satirical comment or parody. By appropriating an everyday image, he claimed that his work commented critically on a political and economic system that places too much value on mass produced commodities and media images. Not surprisingly, the court rejected his defense because his work did not comment directly on the appropriated image. As noted earlier, fair use requires that the parody be directed at least in part at the original work. When the parody comments on society at large, the defendant should be able to license the copyrighted work."
Full context here if you like to read:
http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf1999/landes.html
Sherwood