Lee v. A.R.T. Co., 125 F.3d 580 (1997) p.526
Works of art were mounted on ceramic tiles.
The district court concluded that the mounting of the art on a tile is not an original work of authorship because it is no different in form or function from displaying a painting in a frame or placing a medallion in a velvet case.
When has a derivative work been transformed enough so that it is not an infringement. Whether the mounting of works on ceramic tiles is a derivative work that violates the copyright.
When the work as a whole does not have sufficient original expression, the
The economic value to the copyright owner was realized because there was insignificant change as a result of the work being put on the tile.
We agree with the district court. It is not a derivative work. If the framing process does not create a derivative work, then mountin art on a tile, which serves as a flush frame, does not create a derivative work. The tile is not an art reproduction. The art was not changed in the process of putting it on a ceraminc tile. The art was not transformed by putting it on a tile.
When there is sufficent transformation, the derivative work may be an infringement. Cutting pages out of a book and rebinding it is tranforming the copyrighted work and is an infringement.
Created on: Thursday, October 07, 1999 at 19:39:40 (PDT)