本篇文章講的是版權保護，關於羅傑斯所造成的損害的價值和市場上所創造的原物價值的侵蝕的最終順序也有待確定。隨後，地方法院裁定，昆斯應向羅傑斯支付的最終侵權價值應由地方法院裁決。法院裁定，昆斯必須立即將《小狗串》的複製品倒轉過來，並安排從德國運往美國的船交給羅傑斯。所有地區法院的命令都由昆斯執行。本篇論文 代寫 價格文章由英國論文人EducationRen教育網整理，供大家參考閱讀。
The final order about the value of the harm incurred by Rogers and the erosion of value of the original piece created in the market is also to be ascertained. The order followed that the final infringement value to be rewarded to Rogers by Koons be decided by the District Court. The court held that Koons must immediately reverse forth of the copies of the work ‘String of Puppies’ and arrange the shipment from Germany to United States to be handed over to Rogers. All the orders of the District court were followed by Koons.
Rogers had the pecuniary rights over the work and moral rights for being the original creator. Koons used and copied the original piece created by Rogers and made personal gains deepening the belief that it is a strong case of infringement of the copyright act.
The media industry has been closely following this case and has come to understand when parody is allowed and when it is not. The use of copyrighted material for making personal profit is indeed an infringement in clear sense requiring less evidence for its defence (Bader, 2006). Media industry has put more stress on making original content and picture so as to remain aloof from the jaws of copyright infringement penalties. Though it is attentive and alert, the digital age has little room for identifying infringements (Chaudhry and Zimmerman, 2013) where gigabits of information in the form of literal writings and pictures share hands and are used everywhere in advertisements and promotions. Identifying such cases of infringements have become more complex due to information overload (Cottier and Mavroidis, 2003) and the claims for infringement are only limited to cases where the identified damage is huge and out of expectations. The monetary worth of an original work is being utilised in different ways by different people and some people are able to gain double the profits while someone else only gathers marginal profit (Granstrand, 1999). Thus, the presentation of the work by the designer and how it is marketed and promoted makes the claims more relevant and appealing. In addition, the infringement is only possible when the owner identifies the infringement of his original work, and identifying in this digital age becomes difficult or sometimes impossible. The law is strong, but the horizon of identification has become so vast that identification itself is considered important which follows the case further (Jennewein, 2005). Though such complexity, original users always try and stay away from infringements and creativity is encouraged so as to create original content, and then copyright it to safeguard its misuse.