Koon: Ethics And Copyright In Graphic Design

3-1 Discussion: Ethics and Copyright in Graphic Design

On this discussion I’m torn on this subject (as it pertains to Koons). As a designer we look at different things for inspiration: books, magazines, ads, prints, other artists, anything that will inspire us to create. There are times when you look at someone’s work and it reminds you of something you have already seen. You might say to yourself or out loud: “that reminds me of...” or “that looks a lot like _____work?” Is it plagiarism? Or appropriation? It is a compliment? Or stealing? I think it all depends on how the work is being used and who’s original work it is.

In Koon’s case, he took an advertisement image and created a dimensional sculpture. Even though it looks similar it’s not quite the same. There are things in the sculpture that do not appear in the photograph so one can argue that it’s not plagiarism. Koons big mistake was naming his pieces the same header that was used in the ad. Then you also have to question why it took Davidovici so long to sue Koon? Was it because the one edition of Faitd’Hiver sold for $4.3 million dollars? Who knows.

As outlined, in the Stanford University Copyright and Fair Use Library, “A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the