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.