<P> The detail of Blanch's photograph used by Koons is only marginally copyrightable . Blanch has no rights to the Gucci sandals, "perhaps the most striking element of the photograph", the judge wrote . And without the sandals, only a representation of a woman's legs remains--and this was seen as "not sufficiently original to deserve much copyright protection ." </P> <P> In 2000, Damien Hirst's sculpture Hymn (which Charles Saatchi had bought for a reported £ 1m) was exhibited in Ant Noises in the Saatchi Gallery . Hirst was sued for breach of copyright over this sculpture . The subject was a' Young Scientist Anatomy Set' belonging to his son Connor, 10,000 of which are sold a year by Hull (Emms) Toy Manufacturer . Hirst created a 20 - foot, six - ton enlargement of the Science Set figure, radically changing the perception of the object . Hirst paid an undisclosed sum to two charities, Children Nationwide and the Toy Trust in an out - of - court settlement . The charitable donation was less than Emms had hoped for . Hirst sold three more copies of his sculpture for similar amounts to the first . </P> <P> Appropriating a familiar object to make an art work can prevent the artist claiming copyright ownership . Jeff Koons threatened to sue a gallery under copyright, claiming that the gallery infringed his proprietary rights by selling bookends in the shape of balloon dogs . Koons abandoned that claim after the gallery filed a complaint for declaratory relief stating, "As virtually any clown can attest, no one owns the idea of making a balloon dog, and the shape created by twisting a balloon into a dog - like form is part of the public domain ." </P> <P> In 2008, photojournalist Patrick Cariou sued artist Richard Prince, Gagosian Gallery and Rizzoli books for copyright infringement . Prince had appropriated 40 of Cariou's photos of Rastafarians from a book, creating a series of paintings known as "Canal Zone". Prince variously altered the photos, painting objects, oversized hands, naked women and male torsos over the photographs, subsequently selling over $10 million worth of the works . In March 2011, a judge ruled in favor of Cariou, but Prince and Gargosian appealed on a number of points . Three judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the right to an appeal . Prince's attorney argued that "Appropriation art is a well - recognized modern and postmodern art form that has challenged the way people think about art, challenged the way people think about objects, images, sounds, culture" On April 24, 2013, the appeals court largely overturned the original decision, deciding that many of the paintings had sufficiently transformed the original images and were therefore a permitted use . See Cariou v. Prince . </P>

When is appropriation homage and when is it plagiarism