on Mirage & Munoz Precious Moments v La Infantil, 971 F. Supp. 66 (D.P.R. 1997), Mirage and its progeny have been criticized by others as well. Lee v. Deck the Walls, Inc, 925 F.Supp. 576 (N.D.Ill.1996), this court disagrees with the Munoz court; the court finds the proffered distinctions between framed art and "tiled art" unconvincing and without support. Mirage Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co, 856 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1988), bad case law concerning derivatives. Mirage Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co, 856 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1988), Mirage has been disclaimed by most other circuits and by many legal scholars: including Professor Nimmer. on 9th Circuit Lee v. Deck the Walls, Inc, 925 F.Supp. 576 (N.D.Ill.1996), the Ninth Circuit ignores the definition of a "derivative work" found in § 101, in which Congress specifically included an originality requirement. LEE v A.R.T. Company, 125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997), Scholarly disapproval of Mirage Editions has been widespread.