碩士論文代寫-關於《版權法》的案例
昆斯認為和辯護,這張照片是用於模仿或諷刺的社會,並認為通過使用雕塑他想表明,大規模生產的產品和媒體形象惡化社會產品和工作的質量和雕塑與大規模生產的本質。昆斯認為，這只不過是對社會的拙劣模仿，作為一名藝術家，他被通過雕塑來表現這種品質惡化的想法所吸引。昆斯還引用了1976年《版權法》第107條為自己辯護，其中規定，任何用於批評的複製或模仿原作的行為都不被視為版權，可以被合理使用(Kahin, 2000)。法院發現，昆斯聲稱抄襲的作品是合理使用的，如果涉及商業利益和個人利益的行為，而不為社會創造任何東西，就不構成合理使用。在這裡，昆斯對社會沒有任何貢獻，他實際上以37.6萬美元的價格出售了作品，並獲得了可觀的利潤，這被認為不是合理使用，而是出於個人利益的動機。
進一步的證據表明，昆斯撕下了明信片上有版權標誌的部分，並特別指示雕塑複製作品，並對男人、女人和小狗做了一些小改動。羅傑斯認為，這是為了社會利益的公平使用，昆斯必須證明同樣的男人，女人和狗的戲仿部分。羅傑斯再次質疑昆斯在市場上銷售雕塑並賺取個人利潤的動機。法院發現，昆斯創作的羅傑斯原作的複製品是這張照片的精髓所在，甚至沒有在視覺上顯示出這張照片與眾不同、平庸無奇。法院進一步補充說，當作品被認為是普通的、典型的，並且不會對藝術家的潛在收入構成任何威脅時，該作品就不應該保護所有者的動機。但是昆斯的作品是故意在市場上銷售的，這直接威脅到了羅傑的賺錢能力，因此昆斯違反了版權法。
碩士論文代寫-關於《版權法》的案例
Koons argued and defended that the picture was used as a parody or satire of society at large, and argued that by using the sculpture he wanted to show that mass production of products and media images has deteriorated the quality of products and work in society and the sculpture resembles the very nature of mass production. Koons argued that this is nothing but a parody on society and he being an artist was drawn to the idea of representing this deterioration of quality by way of the sculpture. Koons further adds his defence by citing section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act which states that any copy or imitation of the original work for criticism is not claimed as a copyright, and may be constituted as a fair use (Kahin, 2000). The court found that the work copied, claimed by Koons as fair use, if associated with an act of commercial interest and benefiting personally and not creating anything for society does not constitute fair use. Here, Koons had nothing for the society and he did in fact sell the work for $376,000 dollars and made substantial profits which are not considered as fair use but an act motivated by personal gains.
Further evidence provides that Koons tore off the part where the post card had the copyright sign and specifically instructed the sculpture to copy the work and make minor changes on the man, woman, and the puppies. Rogers argues that it was meant to be used as fair use for the benefit of society, and Koons must prove the same for the man, woman and the parody on the part of the puppies. Rogers again questioned the motive of Koons to market the sculpture to sell in the market and make personal profit. The court found out that the copy of the original work of Rogers by Koons was the copy of the essence of the photograph and was not even giving signals visually that the picture is different and commonplace. The court further added that when the work created is seen to be commonplace, typical, and does not pose any threat to the artist’s potential to earn, then that work is not supposed to protect the owner’s incentive. But Koons copy was intentionally made to be sold in the market and it produced a direct threat of Roger’s ability to earn, hence it is a violation of the copyright law by Koons.
英國論文人EducationRen教育網深得廣大客戶的支持和厚愛。我們的服務目標：締造精品，善待一生!我們的服務宗旨：誠信至上，服務至上，客戶至上!我們的服務理念：專業專注，優質服務!如果需要英國論文代寫，就點擊上方欄目列表，各種服務等著你，客服24小時在線，歡迎諮詢!