Discussion:
What is the name of your state? Missouri
I have researched the site as much as I can to find an answer. This is the closest I have come:
COLOR=red]In general, there is the "first sale" doctrine, which basically says that once you sell a copy of a copyrighted work to someone else, you lose control over that particular copy. So, if you buy a copy of a book, you can do what you want -- with that copy. You can resell it to someone else, give it away, destroy or deface it, whatever. You can't create a new copy of a purchased work, nor can you create a derivative work, but you can certainly sell a used book.[/COLOR]
This may be getting very technical but here goes. If I buy a book from a book store technically I am the second buyer as the store has purchased the book from the publisher or distributor. If this is an accurate assumption then the "first sale" doctrine would not apply. If the about statement (in red) is correct then I am free to dismantle the book and sell it page by page if I so desire. Is this correct?
I am looking at a calendar I purchased used and on the back it states "Any commericial use of this calendar by dismantling, selling prints framed or unframed, or using any part for any form of reproduction is strictly prohibited.
Does this statement override the freedom I have or is this a statement that has no legal foundation?
Answer:
"If I buy a book from a book store technically I am the second buyer as the store has purchased the book from the publisher or distributor. If this is an accurate assumption then the "first sale" doctrine would not apply."
No, it does apply. After the "first sale" of the book to the distributor, the copyright holder has "exhausted" his rights to control that particular copy, no matter how many times that particular copy is subsequently transferred.
"If the about statement (in red) is correct then I am free to dismantle the book and sell it page by page if I so desire. Is this correct?"
In general, no. While it is true that you can deface the book, destroy it, etc., when you resell a part of the book rather than the whole, in essence you are creating a "derivative work" without authorization, which is a violation of copyright. Although the "first sale" doctrine means that the copyright holder can no longer exercise control over that particular copy of the work he has sold, when you create a derivative work, this is essentially a "new" work and therefore the copyright holder can reassert control over that derivative work.
"I am looking at a calendar I purchased used and on the back it states "Any commericial use of this calendar by dismantling, selling prints framed or unframed, or using any part for any form of reproduction is strictly prohibited.
Does this statement override the freedom I have or is this a statement that has no legal foundation?"
If you take the calender apart and sell it piece by piece, this is essentially creating derivative works; the copyright holder can control the creation of derivative works under copyright law, so this statement is a true statement.
Answer:
Thanks for the response. Where can I find more indepth info on this?
Answer:
It depends on what kind of information you are looking for, but you canfind a ton of info on Google, and you could always surf over to for more info.
Answer:
I went to and did a search for dirivitive works. There is a fair amount of info. I read quite a bit. What I am understanding is there has to be a substantial change to the original work for it to be considered a new work or dirivitive work. I need to be able to understand this clearly as it affects by online business. I am having a hard time understanding how removing a picture from a book is creating a derivitive work.
Answer:
"What I am understanding is there has to be a substantial change to the original work for it to be considered a new work or dirivitive work."
Removing 1 picture from a group of 12 would certainly qualify as a "substantial change" -- you had 12 pictures before, now you just have 1.
In any event, if this is going to affect your business, you would be well-served to speak with an atorney experienced in copyright who can review all of the relevant facts and give you a more definitive answer to your question.
Answer:
One further thing -- what exactly are you trying to do? A little more information might illuminate a more relevant section of copyright law.
Answer:

Answer:
I found a couple of other things that might be useful to you:
"The 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.S. § 101, defines a derivative work as a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted"
Midway Mfg. Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 704 F.2d 1009 (U.S. App. , 1983).
It would appear from the plain reading that removal of one picture from group of 12 would be an "abridgement" or "condensation" as defined above, and therefore create a derivative work.
However, it looks as if there is a split on whether or not simply removing a picture from a compilation would be sufficiently "transformative" to result in a derivative work. The 9th Circuit in Mirage Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co., 856 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1988) held that removing selected prints from a compilation and reselling them mounted on tiles DID create a derivative work and therefore infringed on the copyright of the picture and compilation.
Two other cases with nearly identical facts held exactly the opposite, that removing a single picture from a compilation was insufficiently creative to create a derivative work, and therefore the removal of an image and remounting it on a tile was lawful under the first sale doctrine. Munoz v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co., 829 F. Supp. 309 (D.C. Alaska 1993); Lee v. Deck the Walls, 925 F. Supp. 576, 579 (D.C. N.D. Ill. 1996).
Melville Nimmer, the preeminent copyright guru, agrees with the later two cases:
"In Mirage . . . as a necessary step in applying the first step, the court ruled that a derivative work was created . . . . The court held that removing reproductions of art works from a 'compilation of selected copyrighted individual art works,' and thereafter mounting those reproductions onto ceramic tile, resulted in the creation of derivative works . . . . Was the court correct in that conclusion? Even apart from the questionable contribution of intellectual labor in the physical activities of page-removal and mounting . . . it is difficult to imagine that the artist (or his widow, a plaintiff in the case) could take separately copyrighted individual art works and, merely by reproducing them in a compilation and then taking the reproduced pages out of the compilation and remounting them, thereby obtain a new copyright in the same art works. For the sole contribution added in this process is the method of mounting; choosing ceramic rather than cardboard as the backing material should scarcely be construed as a "meaningful" variation in the eyes of the Copyright Act. It is therefore submitted that the court's analysis was in error. A later case against the same defendant ruled that mounting an artist's lithographs and notecards onto tiles was similarly infringing. This case did not even involve disassembling a collective work into which the authorized prints had been gathered; instead, it involved an activity not far afield from mounting and framing. The court distinguished the activity at bar because "it is commonly understood that [framing] amounts to only a method of display" and because "it is a relatively simple matter to remove the print or painting [from the frame] and display it differently if the owner chooses to do so." Neither proposition is supported in the court's opinion; even if true, the question remains unanswered how tile-mounting creates a meaningful variation that itself could support copyright protection."
1 Nimmer on Copyrights, § 3.03.
So, you may be okay with selling one picture out of a calender, or one page from a book. However, as I noted before, you may want to talk with a local attorney experienced in copyright to get a ruling on this matter.
Answer:
Wow! I greatly appreciate the time, information and opinion. This is where I was/am in my research. It is the grey that caused me to search out this site. My logical mind has a hard time seeing how this would create a new work, etc. I want to be moral, legal and above board in my marketing. I think I will rest my case. Thanks again.