Circuit split · copyright law
Whether affixing a lawfully purchased copy of a copyrighted work onto a new medium, such as a ceramic tile, creates an infringing derivative work under the Copyright Act
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- Lee v. A.R.T. Co.125 F3D 580
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals · September 18, 1997
“Because this opinion creates a conflict among the circuits, it has been circulated to all judges in active service.” — Creates a split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The provision at issue
17 U.S.C. § 106A — Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
“(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.—Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art— (1) shall have the right— (A) to claim authorship of that work, and (B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create; (2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be …”Read the full section →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- Declined to followMuñoz
- Declined to followMirage Editions
What the split turns on
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.