Template:Did you know nominations/Blanch v. Koons
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 09:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Blanch v. Koons
- ... that Andrea Blanch says she came to appreciate Jeff Koons's artwork more after suing him for copyright infringement? Source: "I have to say that since the whole case happened, I’ve spent more time looking at his work; and I’ve gained an appreciation for it" Andrea Blanch blog, 2011
- ALT1: ... that because photographer Andrea Blanch admitted she had no plans to license her work during her copyright infringement lawsuit against Jeff Koons, the court found no market impact and thus fair use? Source: "lanch acknowledges that she has not published or licensed "Silk Sandals" subsequent to its appearance in Allure, that she has never licensed any of her photographs for use in works of graphic or other visual art, that Koons's use of her photograph did not cause any harm to her career or upset any plans she had for "Silk Sandals" or any other photograph, and that the value of "Silk Sandals" did not decrease as the result of Koons's alleged infringement. In light of these admissions, it is plain that "Niagara" had no deleterious effect "upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." 17 U.S.C. § 107(4).[9 The fourth fair-use factor greatly favors Koons.]" Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 258 (2nd Cir., 2006)
- ALT2: ... that Blanch v. Koons has been described as reflecting a postmodernist understanding of copyright? Source: "the rhetorical structure of the Blanch opinion represents a significant move away from the Modernist author-worship, and an early signal of a perceptible shift in how courts will increasingly understand the relationship between author and work in years to come.51 It represents, in fact, a rejection of the grand narrative of authorship and “author-ity,” in favor of an approach that distributes attention and concern across the full range of participants in the processes of cultural production and consumption.52 As such, it may signal a general loosening of authors’ and owners’ authority over, by now, not quite so auratic works, allowing greater space for the free play of meaning on the part of audience members and follow-up users who bring new interpretations.53 If so, this is a change of potentially profound importance, undermining the stability of the two concepts at the heart of modern copyright ... [The Blanch decision suggests that as old attitudes have been displaced or supplemented by new ones in the domain of culture, law is (however belatedly) beginning to follow suit. Specifically, law may be absorbing an attitude of skepticism about fixed identity and stable point of view—recognizing what has been clear for some time in arts practice and aesthetic theory: that much like the natural world, constructed culture is fair game for reinterpretation as “fact[s] in the world,” to quote Jeff Koons once again.]" Peter Jazsi, "Is There Such A Thing As Postmodern Copyright?", 12 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 105, 116–17 (2009)
- ALT3: ... that fashion photographer Andrea Blanch sued artist Jeff Koons for copyright infringement after he reused a photograph she took of a woman's lower legs in one of his paintings without asking her? Source: "He knew that he’d done it, and he didn’t bother to ask permission ... I just know that he appropriated my image, and he should have asked for permission to use it.", same as source for original hook
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/National War Labor Board (1942–1945)
Moved to mainspace by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 01:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Blanch v. Koons; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Largely cited to the case itself offline. @Daniel Case: The background section seems like an WP:OR history of transformative use, but I see that an article with a similar style has gotten through FA; secondary sources would be preferred in time. Meets other reqs in length, newness, neutrality, QPQ. ALT0 preferred. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- So you would like me to add more of the law-review article cites to where it recounts the case? While I think that treating court opinions as primary sources is a serious misunderstanding of our sourcing policy (at the very least, I think, some editors have accepted the obvious: that court decisions, particularly appellate-level ones, are acceptable sources for their own opinions and rulings, since they're not strictly primary sources as we presently define them), I have no problem doing that.
Funny that you mention Heffernan, I wrote that section too. The reason is that, since the instant opinion depends so heavily on precedent (like there's a case that doesn't?), if you defer any explanation of that precedent to when you discuss the actual ruling, you inevitably go on tangents that often lose the reader, especially one with no legal sensibility. (And frankly I could use the same legal scholarship to serve as sources for that section, since most legal scholarship on a particular case or area of law begins with a long reiteration of the relevant case law, which most informed readers usually skim at best because they already know it).
It really bothers me that so many people—maybe not you, I hope, but nevertheless a great many editors who I know would know better if they took the time to understand—seem to think that judicial prose is so dense as to be impenetrable to most readers and requiring "secondary" sources (actually tertiary ones) for the most basic understanding. In fact, IME, a lot of court opinions are fairly clear in the places they have to be; I don't see why all this further elucidation is really needed.
I also find this interesting given that we do not make the same demand of articles about scientific or technical subjects, which are also often sourced to densely written journal articles, but where we seem to have no problem deferring to an editor's interpretation on good faith.
Sorry for the rant; do not let it lead you to believe that I am not willing to make the requested changes. I'll let you know when I have. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case, just to be clear: The sections on the case itself are fine—cited to the opinion itself is fine—I was just (wrongly) noting that the source was offline (I missed the External links section). However, the section that I think could use additional sourcing is the Background subsection on Fair and transformative use: here the court cases you cite, predating Blanch, are relevant according to common sense, but it might be a good idea to add secondary sources (such as the pages of the Blanch opinion!) linking them to this case to avoid the appearance of original research. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, not a problem ... I should be able to get to that this weekend. Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case, just to be clear: The sections on the case itself are fine—cited to the opinion itself is fine—I was just (wrongly) noting that the source was offline (I missed the External links section). However, the section that I think could use additional sourcing is the Background subsection on Fair and transformative use: here the court cases you cite, predating Blanch, are relevant according to common sense, but it might be a good idea to add secondary sources (such as the pages of the Blanch opinion!) linking them to this case to avoid the appearance of original research. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- So you would like me to add more of the law-review article cites to where it recounts the case? While I think that treating court opinions as primary sources is a serious misunderstanding of our sourcing policy (at the very least, I think, some editors have accepted the obvious: that court decisions, particularly appellate-level ones, are acceptable sources for their own opinions and rulings, since they're not strictly primary sources as we presently define them), I have no problem doing that.