Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves an artist, who sold her registered works through a firm, challenging a retail chain's resale of her art mounted on ceramic tiles by claiming it constituted derivative works under 17 U.S.C. § 106(2). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the retail chain, applying the doctrine of first sale under 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), which permits the resale of legally purchased works. The court found that the mounting process employed by the retailer did not create a derivative work, as it lacked originality and was akin to traditional framing, which does not infringe copyright. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 did not apply, as the artist's works were not 'works of visual art' as defined by the statute. The decision acknowledged a circuit conflict, highlighting scholarly criticism of related case law previously cited by the artist. Ultimately, the court affirmed its decision, denying the artist's claims and emphasizing the necessity of originality in derivative works.
Legal Issues Addressed
Creation of Derivative Works under 17 U.S.C. § 106(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Lee's claim that mounting her works on tiles constituted a derivative work was rejected by the district court, which found the process analogous to framing.
Reasoning: The district court determined that A.R.T.'s method of mounting Lee's works on tile does not qualify as an 'original work of authorship,' viewing the process as similar to framing a painting, which does not infringe on copyright rights.
Definition and Originality of Derivative Workssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court required that for Lee's works to be considered derivative, they needed to be altered in a way that fit the statutory definition, which was not met.
Reasoning: The court found that A.R.T. merely purchased and mounted Lee's original works, which did not qualify as 'art reproductions,' 'recast,' or 'adapted.'
Doctrine of First Sale under 17 U.S.C. § 109(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that A.R.T. was entitled to resell the mounted works it legally purchased from Lee's firm under the doctrine of first sale.
Reasoning: The district court ruled in favor of A.R.T., granting summary judgment, suggesting the doctrine of first sale under 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) applies, allowing A.R.T. to resell the mounted works it legally purchased.
Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 and Section 106Asubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Visual Artists Rights Act did not apply to Lee's case as her works did not meet the definition under the statute.
Reasoning: Furthermore, 106A only applies to 'works of visual art,' defined as unique works or limited editions of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and numbered by the author. Lee's note cards and lithographs do not meet this definition, so she cannot invoke 106A.