Lee v. A.R.T. Co., 125 F.3d 580 (1997) p.526

SUBJECT

derivative work

FACTS

Works of art were mounted on ceramic tiles.

PROCEDURE

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.

ISSUE

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.

RULE

When the work as a whole does not have sufficient original expression, the

HOLDING

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.

RATIONAL

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.

NOTES

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)