The appeal of the photo is evident ans incredibly inspiring; But the fact that Koons used his inspiratinon to rip off Rogers is crazy. the photo and the sculpture are exactly the same. The only difference is the stupid daisys which i suppose are supposed to represent something of whimsy or whatever, but its not enough. its just stupid. the sculpture even cuts off at the knee like the photo and is just sitting there on the ground ike the photo would.
Despite my strong feelings against Koons' actions im still fuzzy on what exactly is copyright infringement and what is appropriation. What gave me the biggest insight was this excerpt from
" In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
Even armed with this knowledge, the line between legal and not is so blurred. I hope i dont get into any trouble like Koons did, but i would never be THAT stupid.

