Mirage Editions, Inc., Jennifer Dumas, and Alfred Van Der Marck Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A company bought a book of art prints, cut them out, and mounted them on ceramic tiles for resale. The court found this created an unauthorized “derivative work,” infringing the artist’s copyright, and was not protected by the first sale doctrine.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that permanently mounting a lawfully purchased copyrighted image onto a new medium “recasts” or “transforms” the work, creating an infringing derivative work that is not shielded by the first sale doctrine.
Mirage Editions, Inc., Jennifer Dumas, and Alfred Van Der Marck Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiffs, Mirage Editions, Inc., and others (Mirage), owned the copyrights to the artworks of artist Patrick Nagel and to a commemorative book compiling his works. The defendant, Albuquerque A.R.T. Co. (A.R.T.), purchased copies of this book, excised individual art prints from its pages, and permanently affixed each print to a ceramic tile. The process involved gluing the print onto a black plastic sheet, which was then glued to the tile, and covering the entire surface with a transparent plastic film. A.R.T. then offered these finished tiles for sale in the retail market. Mirage sued for copyright infringement, alleging that A.R.T.’s tiles were unauthorized derivative works. A.R.T. did not dispute the facts of its process but contended that its actions were permissible under copyright law, specifically the first sale doctrine, and that the tiles were not derivative works.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a party create an unauthorized derivative work in violation of the Copyright Act by purchasing a book of copyrighted art, removing the individual prints, and permanently mounting them onto ceramic tiles for resale?
Yes. Affixing a lawfully acquired copyrighted print to a ceramic tile “recasts” Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in v
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a party create an unauthorized derivative work in violation of the Copyright Act by purchasing a book of copyrighted art, removing the individual prints, and permanently mounting them onto ceramic tiles for resale?
Conclusion
This case clarifies the boundary between the first sale doctrine and the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco la
Legal Rule
Under the Copyright Act, a copyright owner has the exclusive right to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the statutory definition of a "derivative work" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore e
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Mounting art prints cut from a lawfully purchased book onto ceramic