Differences

On page 13 in Practices of Looking there is a painting of some fruit and dishes. On the next page there is another painting of the same looking fruit and dishes, except everything has a face on it. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the original painter sued the painter who created a similar painting. I think that the court would decide that the newer painting falls within the Fair Use Doctrine. I think that it is more of an actual parody of the original piece. In Rogers v. Koons Koons just made the photo into a sculpture and added some color. This is not enough change for it to fall under the Fair Use Doctrine. To me the message in Koons piece was the same in Rogers’ piece. But in the two pieces on pages 13 and 14 of Practices of Looking, to me, the meaning has changed and therefore it is okay.