|
From Lee v. ART Co., 125 F. 3d 580 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 1997:
"A.R.T. bought
the work legitimately, mounted it on a tile, and resold what it had purchased. Because the artist could capture the value of her art's contribution
to the finished product as part of the price for the original transaction, the economic rationale for protecting an adaptation as "derivative" is
absent. See William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law, 17 J. Legal Studies 325, 353-57 (1989).
An alteration that includes (or consumes) a complete copy of the original lacks economic significance. One work changes hands multiple
times, exactly what § 109(a) permits, so it may lack legal significance too."
|