Re: Re: Derivative Inquiry

Nobody is going to sue the day care center, and nobody is going to make money laminating greeting cards purchased for $1.25. Let's change the facts.

/Maxfield Parrish: The Masterworks/, described on Amazon as: "The calendar art of Maxfield Parrish (1870-1966) and his covers for Collier's, Ladies' Home Journal and other magazines in the early decades of the century look increasingly campy now. Featuring 145 color plates ..., this snazzy showcase of Parrish's art will please fans and collectors." It costs $225.00. The pages measure 10.8 X 13.5. That's just about right for one-of-a-kind laminated kitchen-table place-mats -- at $10/each, those 145 place-mats return $14,500.00. Is that covered by the first sale doctrine?

How about The Norton Anthology of Modern and Contemporary Poetry, Third Edition -- 1,596 poems, licensed by 195 poets for inclusion in the prestigious and definitive collection of the best twentieth century poets. Can I buy the book for $50, razor the pages, and sell the poems on the internet for $2/each, "in your choice of a card-mounting or crappy plastic frame, suitable for birth announcements, sympathy cards, or any special occasion, especially Valentine's Day, that calls for highfalutin high-brow sentiments." They're not all going to sell, but I only need to move 25 of them before I can afford to re-stock my inventory.

You comfortable with that, Terry?

John Noble

At 3:55 PM -0400 8/28/06, Terry Carroll wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Jason sheperd wrote:
>
>> A preschool daycare buys age apprpriate workbooks for its students, removes
>> the pages and puts them in plastic in a binder (the binder has all pages,
>> cover, title page, etc) so that the teachers can work with each student
>> using a dry-erase marker on the plastic. This way the daycare only has to
>> purchase a couple sets for use with all of its students. No photocopying is
>> taking place. Our research indicates this is not a violation of the
>> distribution right or derivative work right. Do you all agree?
>
>In the Ninth Circuit, with its absurd Mirage Editions, Inc. v.
>Albuquerque A.R.T. Co. case (which held that merely taking a greeting
>card, cutting it up, and laminating it onto a tile amounted to the
>preparation of a derivative work) would possibly, maybe even probably,
>find this to be creating a derivative work.
>
>I would hope, though, that even the Ninth Circuit would by now recognize
>the folly of its ways (other circuits, such as the Seventh Circuit in Lee
>v. A.R.T. Co.) certainly have recognized that folly) and the scorn that
>has been heaped upon it for this case, and not extend it further.
>
>
>#############################################################
>This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
>To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
>To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
>To resume mail list message delivery from postpone mode, E-mail to
><CNI-COPYRIGHT-feed[_at_]cni.org>
>Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
>Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
><https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
Received on Tue Aug 29 2006 - 19:45:31 GMT