Rogers v. Koons
1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2401, 777 F. Supp. 1, 1991 WL 225972 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party that sells infringing copies of copyrighted works is directly liable for copyright infringement, regardless of whether it knew the works were infringing or whether it exercised control over the primary infringer.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Rogers created a copyrighted photograph.
- Artist Jeff Koons created sculptures that copied elements from Rogers' copyrighted photograph.
- Sonnabend Gallery, Inc. displayed and sold these sculptures.
- Sonnabend Gallery, Inc. was identified as the seller on the sales invoices for the sculptures.
- Sonnabend Gallery, Inc. realized 50% of the profits from the sales of the sculptures.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Rogers initiated a copyright infringement suit against artist Jeff Koons and Sonnabend Gallery, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on December 10, 1990 (751 F.Supp. 474), which found Koons liable for infringement but left Sonnabend Gallery, Inc.'s liability ambiguous or undecided.
- Following the December 10, 1990, order, Rogers (plaintiff) filed a timely motion for reargument with the District Court regarding Sonnabend Gallery, Inc.'s liability for infringement.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an art gallery that sells sculptures copying a copyrighted work incur direct liability for copyright infringement, even if it lacked knowledge that the sculptures were infringing?
Opinions:
Majority - Haight, District Judge
Yes, an art gallery that sells sculptures copying a copyrighted work incurs direct liability for copyright infringement, even if it lacked knowledge that the sculptures were infringing. The court clarified that while Sonnabend Gallery did not exercise sufficient supervision and control over Koons to be held vicariously liable under Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co., its role as a seller made it a direct infringer. Citing F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., the court held that a seller of infringing copies is directly liable, irrespective of their knowledge of the infringement. The court also referenced Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories By Pearl, Inc., which affirmed that an infringer's lack of knowledge affects only damages, not basic liability or injunctive relief. Since Sonnabend was identified as the seller on sales invoices and received 50% of profits, it was deemed a directly infringing seller.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the broad scope of direct copyright infringement liability, particularly for commercial entities involved in the distribution or sale of infringing works. It underscores that unlike vicarious liability, which requires a showing of control and financial benefit, direct infringement by a seller does not require knowledge of the infringement. This ruling places a significant burden on galleries, retailers, and other sellers to ensure the originality of the works they handle, reinforcing copyright holders' ability to pursue all parties in the chain of distribution of infringing goods.
