Rogers v. Koons

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · Property

PropertyCopyright infringementdirect infringementseller liabilitycopyrightinnocent infringementvicarious liabilityart gallery

Facts

Plaintiff sought to hold Sonnabend Gallery liable in connection with Koons's infringing sculptures. The court concluded Sonnabend did not exercise the degree of supervision and control over Koons necessary to support vicarious liability under Shapiro. However, Sonnabend was identified as the seller on the sales invoices for the sculptures and received 50% of the infringing profits. The court therefore considered whether Sonnabend was itself a directly infringing seller.

Issue

Whether an art gallery that sold infringing sculptures, was identified as the seller on the invoices, and shared in the profits could be held directly liable for copyright infringement even if it lacked the level of control necessary for vicarious liability and may not have known of the infringement.

Rule

A party that markets or sells unauthorized copies of a copyrighted work is directly liable for copyright infringement. The seller's lack of knowledge of the copyright or of the infringement affects damages, but does not defeat basic liability or injunctive relief.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Seattle, painter Lena Ortiz sues Cedar Frame House, a small home-decor boutique, after the store sold wall plaques that turned out to be unauthorized reproductions of her copyrighted illustration. Cedar bought the plaques from a wholesaler, listed itself as seller on customer receipts, and says it had no idea the wholesaler lacked permission.

If Lena proves the plaques were unauthorized copies, which is the strongest conclusion about Cedar's liability under the majority opinion's rule?

Explanation. The majority opinion treated actual marketing or sale of infringing copies as direct infringement. It relied on the principle that a seller of unauthorized copies is liable even if it did not make the copies and lacked knowledge of the infringement. Lack of knowledge goes to damages, not basic liability or injunctive relief. (Derived from Rogers v. Koons (n.d.).)