Jeff Konz won the case of violating copyright

Pop artist Jeff Konz, a federal judge of Manhattan, persuaded that a lawsuit for copyright should be expelled against him. Konz has been claimed to have violated the copyright of a group designer claiming that the artist’s work is depicted in paintings and other artworks.

The American boycott judge, Timothy,, decided on Wednesday that Michael Hayden, the specified designer, has already a long time to file a lawsuit since the alleged violation occurred decades ago.

In the eighties of the last century, Hayden worked as a designer, collections, groups, and prayers designed from time to time for films and live shows that include Elona Staller, an Italian adult movie that has turned into a politician known as Cicciolina.

Hayden, knowing that Cicciolina loved snakes, designed a great sculpture of giant snake that narrows a rock base to use as a platform that can be performed.

Installation offer for Ceff Konz Paradise (1989) at StaatsGalerie Stuttgart, Germany. Photography by Wolfgang Kon/United Archives via Getti Imach

Koons traveled to Italy throughout 1989 to shoot explicit sexual photos with Cicciolina, which was more famous at the time, for the series “Made In Heaven” that was filmed in a studio where Cicciolina collections are located. This series was credited with as a group of works that have launched Koons to Art World Stardom.

Hayden specifically claimed that copyright had been violated in: Paradise (1989), stone edition of the Whitney Museum; Jeff and Elona (made in the sky) (1990), a work that was first displayed in the 1990 Venice Biennial with a three -dimensional replica of Hayden’s work; and Jeff in Adam’s position (1990), oil on canvas.

Hayden, who filed the lawsuit in 2021, ended his work with Cicciolina after a short period of sculpture. He confirmed that he only heard about the alleged violation in 2019 after he sent him a former commercial partner for an article in an Italian newspaper discussing a lawsuit against Sotheby for Koons’s presentation Paradise.

Then he submitted a recording of the copyright granted in early 2020 and a short period of contact with Koons in his intention to file a lawsuit against him.

One of the interesting aspects of the case is that in 2023, the court both parties requested that the case be affected by how the case was affected by the US Supreme Court’s decision in the case of the Andy Warhol Foundation against Goldsmith. This issue arose from Warhol’s use of the 1981 image of the Prince’s musician, which was taken by Lin Goldsmith. Warhol created a series of Silkscreen screen on the Goldsmith image, one of which was later licensed by the foundation Vanity Fair Then to Conde Nast after the death of the prince. A lawsuit was filed against Goldsmith, on the pretext that Warhol’s work violates copyright.

See visitors Paradise (1989) and Jeff on the top (1991) by the artist Jeff Kuns at Tate Modern in London. File image by Yui Mok/Pa via Getty Images

The main legal issue in both the Warhol Foundation against Goldsmith and Hayden against Konz stems from the doctrine of fair use, a legal principle that allows limited use of copyright -protected materials without permission for certain purposes.

The Supreme Court ruled against the Warhol Foundation, where it decided that Warhol’s amendments to the image of Goldsmith were not transforming enough to qualify as a fair use, which is a previous decision -making decision from the Supreme Court that put a higher tape of what is considered transformative.

But Reef did not take its design based on Koons’s arguments for fair use. Instead, Koons’s argument agreed that the case should be refused purely on the ground of time because Hayden, given his background and relationships with Italy, should have been known about the famous artwork on Koons sooner. The law gives only three years to file a complaint.

Although Warhol made his violating artistic works decades ago, this issue did not focus on his initial violation, but rather a new license for one of Warhol’s photos in 2016 by the Andy Warhol Foundation after the death of the prince, while counting as a new work of the alleged violation. Thus, the Goldsmith file fell properly within the statue of restrictions.

However, the reference to the Warhol Foundation against Goldsmith is among the most important cases in which the Supreme Court’s decision affected another case. The court’s request for Warhol’s surroundings indicates that if the case continues, the decision of the Supreme Court would undermine Koons’s ability to rely on fair defense.