Jeff Koons has contributed mightily to measuring the metes and bounds of what constitutes ‘fair use’ in making unauthorized use of someone else’s copyrights. He did it with images of puppies; he did it with celebrity photographs; and now, he’s done it again with ladies legs.

To begin at the beginning, Andrea Blanch, a professional photographer, took a series of photographs of women’s legs that were used in the August 2000 issue of “ALLURE” magazine.

Jeff Koons, in fulfilling on a commission from the Guggenheim Foundation and Deutsche Bank, elected to scan a portion of Blanch’s legs; and, then Koons took the digital scan of Blanch’s work and digitally superimposed those Blanch images against a background of pastoral landscapes. The resulting image is said to comprise to a ‘collage’ which was then reduced to templates for painting upon billboard sized canvases and entitled “EasyFun-Ethereal”. The Koons’ collage (with Blanch’s work embedded) was exhibited in 2000 and 2001 in Berlin and New York City.

Blanch sued; and, Koons succeeded at the trial court level on his defense of fair use. Blanch appealed; and the Second Circuit had a long look at the picture. After the court found that the first and second factors of the four-part fair use analysis demonstrated that the collage was both transformative and constituted social commentary. With ‘transformative’ recognized, it was not surprising that fair use was found, but it didn’t help when Blanch admitted that the use of her photographs did not harm her career, the market for her work or the value of the work in the market place. ( No. 05-6433-cv, 2nd Cir.; 2006)

Koons must be appreciated for his fondness for incurring legal fees. He is a Don Quixote of ‘Fair Use’ who has quite a track record for galvanizing fine copyright case law. Maybe there is a Guggenheim grant funding that quest on which Koons has led so many lawyers and students. Not surprisingly, Koons had his own team of lawyers; and the Guggenheim Foundation had their own team of lawyers; Deutsche Bank had their own team of lawyers…. and giving a grant to Koons begins to look like that old PRELL commercial for lawyers’ full employment.

Chris Gregerson, an individual professional photographer representing himself in Minneapolis federal court, fails in obtaining an injunction against a financial institution that appropriate his photograph of the Minneapolis skyline; but succeeded in eluding a defamation counterclaim.

Defendants use the allegedly infringing photograph in their real estate web ads, print ads, brochures and in third party business directory advertisements, changed only by the elimination of Gregerson’s copyright notice.

Gregerson, after learning of the infringement and finding no satisfaction in his demand that defendants stop infringement, posted on his own website to make his accusation of copyright infringement more public and explicit. The defendants in Chris Gregerson v. Vilana Financial Inc. et al (No. 06-1164, D. Minn.) counterclaimed that Gregerson’s website constituted defamation and trademark infringement. Specifically, the defendants claim that the organic search engine results are skewed as a result of the defendant’s trademarks depicted in Gregerson’s website.

Gregerson defended claiming a first amendment right to state his criticism of defendants.

This is another in a long line of cases where the First Amendment trumps intellectual property causes of action; and it especially predictable when the First Amendment claim includes a criticism.

Now with YouTube allowing 90,000 new videos to be posted daily, this action is remarkable not for the controversy but because Gregerson knew, could locate and serve the parties that are making allegedly unauthorized use of his photographs. Take a look at the YouTube site and especially the most popularly viewed. None of the photographs, music or other third party copyright is authorized on YouTube; and we haven’t see a spate of law suits. What a boon that safe harbor clause of the DMCA is for us all, right?

The U.S. Copyright Statute has two symmetrical parts to Section 102. The first subsection sets out what is protected (… original expression fixed in tangible medium…”) inside the tent of copyright so to speak; and the second subsection sets out what is prohibited from that tent’s protection (…. In no case shall copyright protection extend to idea, process, system, concept, method of operation…). Over time, we have come to understand that the metaphorical tent of copyright does not extend to function. For function protection, you have to go to the Patent Office’s tent.

But with our government being the best that money can buy, and given that there is more power in PAC lobbying than ever before, a new bill (S.17850) has passed the House and the Senate and needs now only minor ratification in the Senate before it is law. That new bill will extend copyright protection to function, specifically, vessel deck designs. This will be a further extension of the camel’s function nose in the copyright tent that the earlier 2005 legislation brought in protecting vessel hull designs.

This is legislation has been specially lobbied through by the small craft design and manufacturing community; and, is the harbinger of the garment design (’fashion’) bill that is in line to be addressed next. The proposed garment design bill will grant a three year monopoly to garment designers on patterns and features of clothing. Who knows, perhaps the optical design and manufacturing community will succeed in proposing new legislation for optical gear which has eluded protection to their satisfaction… and then we’ll approach the whole head of the camel coming in under the tent of copyright.