 For example, in "Rogers v. Koons" transformation was not even cited as the court found the use failed to meet any of the purposes in the preamble of 17 USC § 107.However, in "Blanch v. Koons" it was ruled that a collage painting including a close representation of a photograph was sufficiently transformative because "compared to Blanch’s original photograph, Koons completely inverted the legs’ orientation, painting them to surreally dangle or float over the other elements of the painting.Koons also changed the coloring and added a heel to one of the feet, which had been completely obscured in Blanch's photograph."