bookend ballon dog
lawyers of american artist jeff koons issued a cease-and-desist letter to park life, a small san francisco store and gallery,
asking them to stop selling and advertising their balloon dog bookends.
can koons own something that existed before him?
also considering that the artist has based his whole career on appropriating pop culture and has been repeatedly sued for
inappropriately using others’ copyrighted images.
the balloon dog bookend is unquestionably like koons’ ‘balloon dog’ ; on the other hand, they both look like
any children’s birthday party balloon animal and if you would try to build one
it would probably look very similar too. parklife published a comment ‘jeff koons owns all likenesses of balloon dogs‘.
the balloon dog bookends were bought by park life from a toronto distributor imm living. the company’s goods are sold
in more than 700 stores in the US.
here is the ‘original':
jeff koons’ balloon dog sculpture on the roof of the metropolitan museum of art, new york, april 2008.
the new york times critic was enraptured by the ‘intellectually and sensuously exciting’ sculpture, calling the balloon dog
‘a sly trojan horse: it seems innocent but is loaded with aesthetic and erotic perversity‘.
what’s your opinion?
do you think the bookend falls into the category of an original interpretation of a public domain idea/object?