CGC puts blue label on "new" modified excl18147

Originally Posted by GAC
Let's use a sporting goods analogy and see if this works.

I go to Maple Leaf Entertainment and buy 1000 Toronto Maple Leaf hockey jerseys.

I take those jerseys and sew in a hood creating a hoodie.

I then get a sporting goods authentication company to put these jersey hoodies in a frame under glass and call it a Toronto Maple Leaf "Outdoor" Jersey/Hoodie.

I think Maple Leaf Entertainment lawyers would be on the horn to me saying "What the hell are you doing?"

Originally Posted by ComicNinja0215
start thinking about the integrity of the grading

Originally Posted by dielinfinite
@Byrdibyrd @Jesse_O

Annie LEE v. A.R.T. COMPANY is an interesting case to look at. A company bought notecards and lithographs from an artist then mounted them on tiles, glazed them with resin and resold them. The case was rules in favor of the company.

Part of the rationale was that the company “bought the work legitimately, mounted it on a tile, and resold what it had purchased. Because the artist could capture the value of her art's contribution to the finished product as part of the price for the original transaction, the economic rationale for protecting an adaptation as "derivative" is absent…An alteration that includes (or consumes) a complete copy of the original lacks economic significance. One work changes hands multiple times, exactly what [the law] permits, so it may lack legal significance too”

Where I can a legal opening is later on in the opinion. The case was decided whether the alteration was sufficient to make it a derivative work. In this case the court did not find that mounting and glazing the art was sufficient to meet the standard for a derivative work, particularly the portion saying if the “work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” In this case, the court did not find the mounting process to rise to the standard of a derivative work however similar cases (see MIRAGE EDITIONS v. ALBUQUERQUE A.R.T. CO) have ruled differently.

I can definitely see the argument of the copyrighted work being “recast” and thus becoming a derivative work where Marvel would have rights but I also can’t say it’s such a sure thing that they would surely prevail, though I’d imagine Marvel simply threatening legal action, regardless of it’s chances of prevailing, would be enough to get Black Flag to change its behavior

Originally Posted by EbayMafia
It has similarities, but I'm guessing that A.R.T. Company didn't get a 3rd party certification service to certify it as an Annie LEE limited edition.

Originally Posted by dielinfinite
@Byrdibyrd @Jesse_O

Annie LEE v. A.R.T. COMPANY is an interesting case to look at. A company bought notecards and lithographs from an artist then mounted them on tiles, glazed them with resin and resold them. The case was rules in favor of the company.

Part of the rationale was that the company “bought the work legitimately, mounted it on a tile, and resold what it had purchased. Because the artist could capture the value of her art's contribution to the finished product as part of the price for the original transaction, the economic rationale for protecting an adaptation as "derivative" is absent…An alteration that includes (or consumes) a complete copy of the original lacks economic significance. One work changes hands multiple times, exactly what [the law] permits, so it may lack legal significance too”

Where I can a legal opening is later on in the opinion. The case was decided whether the alteration was sufficient to make it a derivative work. In this case the court did not find that mounting and glazing the art was sufficient to meet the standard for a derivative work, particularly the portion saying if the “work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” In this case, the court did not find the mounting process to rise to the standard of a derivative work however similar cases (see MIRAGE EDITIONS v. ALBUQUERQUE A.R.T. CO) have ruled differently.

I can definitely see the argument of the copyrighted work being “recast” and thus becoming a derivative work where Marvel would have rights but I also can’t say it’s such a sure thing that they would surely prevail, though I’d imagine Marvel simply threatening legal action, regardless of it’s chances of prevailing, would be enough to get Black Flag to change its behavior

Originally Posted by dielinfinite
@Byrdibyrd @Jesse_O

Annie LEE v. A.R.T. COMPANY is an interesting case to look at. A company bought notecards and lithographs from an artist then mounted them on tiles, glazed them with resin and resold them. The case was rules in favor of the company.

Part of the rationale was that the company “bought the work legitimately, mounted it on a tile, and resold what it had purchased. Because the artist could capture the value of her art's contribution to the finished product as part of the price for the original transaction, the economic rationale for protecting an adaptation as "derivative" is absent…An alteration that includes (or consumes) a complete copy of the original lacks economic significance. One work changes hands multiple times, exactly what [the law] permits, so it may lack legal significance too”

Where I can a legal opening is later on in the opinion. The case was decided whether the alteration was sufficient to make it a derivative work. In this case the court did not find that mounting and glazing the art was sufficient to meet the standard for a derivative work, particularly the portion saying if the “work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” In this case, the court did not find the mounting process to rise to the standard of a derivative work however similar cases (see MIRAGE EDITIONS v. ALBUQUERQUE A.R.T. CO) have ruled differently.

I can definitely see the argument of the copyrighted work being “recast” and thus becoming a derivative work where Marvel would have rights but I also can’t say it’s such a sure thing that they would surely prevail, though I’d imagine Marvel simply threatening legal action, regardless of it’s chances of prevailing, would be enough to get Black Flag to change its behavior