Lee v. A.R.T. Co.
125 F.3d 580 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Permanently mounting a legally acquired, copyrighted work of art onto a different medium without altering the work itself does not constitute the creation of a derivative work under 17 U.S.C. § 106(2) of the Copyright Act.
Facts:
- Annie Lee creates and sells works of art, which she has registered with the Register of Copyrights.
- A retail chain, Deck the Walls, is an authorized seller of Lee's art, including her notecards and small lithographs.
- A Deck the Walls store sold some of Lee's notecards and lithographs to A.R.T. Company.
- A.R.T. Company purchased these works and mounted them onto ceramic tiles.
- In the process, A.R.T. Company covered the surface of the art with a transparent epoxy resin.
- A.R.T. Company then offered these finished tiles, featuring Lee's unaltered art, for resale to the public.
Procedural Posture:
- Annie Lee filed a lawsuit against A.R.T. Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for copyright infringement.
- The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, A.R.T. Company.
- Annie Lee, the plaintiff, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does permanently mounting a copyrighted artwork, such as a notecard, onto a ceramic tile and covering it with epoxy resin create a 'derivative work' that infringes the copyright owner's exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106(2)?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Circuit Judge
No. Permanently affixing a work of art to a ceramic tile does not create a derivative work. A work is only derivative if it is 'recast, transformed, or adapted.' The court reasoned that A.R.T. Company's process did not transform or change Lee's original works in any way; the images still depicted exactly what they did when they left Lee's studio. The court analogized the process to framing a painting or matting a photograph, which are common methods of display that do not create derivative works. It explicitly rejected the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Mirage Editions, finding the permanence of the bond between the art and the tile to be a 'distinction without a difference.' The court also warned that accepting Lee's broad interpretation would improperly create an expansive version of 'moral rights' through copyright law, a right that Congress addressed much more narrowly and specifically in the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, which does not apply to Lee's works.
Analysis:
This decision created a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit, which had held that this exact practice did create a derivative work. The Seventh Circuit's ruling narrows the scope of what constitutes a derivative work, clarifying that merely changing the presentation or mounting of a work, even permanently, does not 'transform' it under the Copyright Act. This holding protects the first sale doctrine, allowing purchasers of art to resell it in different formats (like frames or mounts) without infringing copyright, so long as the original creative work itself is not altered. It prevents copyright holders from using the derivative works right to control the downstream display and marketing of their legally sold physical works.
