|
From Lee v. ART Co., 125 F. 3d 580 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 1997:
"Lee wages a vigorous attack on the district court's conclusion that A.R.T.'s mounting process cannot create a derivative work because the
change to the work "as a whole" is not sufficiently original to support a copyright. Cases such as Gracen v. The Bradford Exchange, Inc.,
698 F.2d 300 (7th Cir. 1983), show that neither A.R.T. nor Lee herself could have obtained a copyright in the card-on-a-tile, thereby not
only extending the period of protection for the images but also eliminating competition in one medium of display."
|