Re: "GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivativedistros"

[Alexander Terekhov]

Merijn de Weerd wrote:
> 
> On 2006-06-30, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
> > Merijn de Weerd wrote:
> > [...]
> >> An interesting case happened some time ago here in the Netherlands.
> >> A calendar was published that contained for every month a nice
> >> reproduction of a painting, all by the same painter (Rien
> >> Poortvliet). Someone bought a lot of calendars, cut out the
> >> reproductions, framed them and sold that. The Dutch Supreme Court
> >> ruled that exhaustion (first sale) did not apply, since he was
> >> transforming the works into something new.
> >
> > Sonds like Dutch edition of Mirage Editions (scholarly disapproval
> > of Mirage Editions has been widespread). Do you have a link?
> 
> I prefer to provide summaries that actually make a point
> rather than quoting random lumps of text from other people's
> texts as you like to do.
> 
> If you tell me the relevance of Mirage Editions, I'll give
> you the full cite and all.

I need a link, please.

In Mirage, Albuquerque A.R.T. removed pages from a book of artwork 
(for which Mirage Editions owned a copyright), mounted the pages on 
ceramic tiles, and sold the tiles. According to the Ninth Circuit, 
this process created a derivative work of the copyrighted work, 
thereby infringing the copyright. The Court reasoned that 
Albuquerque A.R.T. created a derivative work by incorporating the 
copyrighted work into its product.

However, Mirage is directly contrary to the Seventh Circuit's more
recent decision in Lee v. A.R.T. 

Scholarly disapproval of Mirage Editions has been widespread.

regards,
alexander.