Uploaded April 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Gracen v. Bradford Exchange
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
698 F.2d 300 (1983)
Generally, to be copyrightable, an artistic work must be original, meaning it must not be a copy of a work that already exists.
However, copyright law also recognizes that a work derived from an existing work, known as a derivative work, may be original enough to deserve copyright protection in its own right.
In Gracen versus Bradford Exchange, the Seventh Circuit considered the standard for copywriting derivative works.
Movie studio MGM produced and copyrighted the movie The Wizard of Oz in nineteen thirty nine.
Actress Judy Garland played Dorothy, the movie's main character.
Later, MGM licensed Bradford Exchange to use scenes and characters from The Wizard of Oz in a series of collectible plates.
Bradford solicited paintings of Dorothy as played by Garland from several artists with the understanding that the artist who produced the best painting would receive a contract for the entire plate series. Bradford supplied each artist with stills from the movie to work from.
Jorie Gracen's painting of Dorothy was selected as the winner, but Gracen and Bradford couldn't agree on contract terms.
Bradford hired another artist, James Auckland, to do the series and asked him to redo Gracen's painting.
The plate Auckland produced was effectively a copy of Gracen's work. Gracen sued Bradford for copyright infringement.
The district court granted summary judgment for Bradford, holding that Gracen's painting couldn't be copyrighted because it wasn't original.
Gracen appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/gracen-v-bradford-exchange
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/gracen-v-bradford-exchange
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Gracen v. Bradford Exchange
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
698 F.2d 300 (1983)
Generally, to be copyrightable, an artistic work must be original, meaning it must not be a copy of a work that already exists.
However, copyright law also recognizes that a work derived from an existing work, known as a derivative work, may be original enough to deserve copyright protection in its own right.
In Gracen versus Bradford Exchange, the Seventh Circuit considered the standard for copywriting derivative works.
Movie studio MGM produced and copyrighted the movie The Wizard of Oz in nineteen thirty nine.
Actress Judy Garland played Dorothy, the movie's main character.
Later, MGM licensed Bradford Exchange to use scenes and characters from The Wizard of Oz in a series of collectible plates.
Bradford solicited paintings of Dorothy as played by Garland from several artists with the understanding that the artist who produced the best painting would receive a contract for the entire plate series. Bradford supplied each artist with stills from the movie to work from.
Jorie Gracen's painting of Dorothy was selected as the winner, but Gracen and Bradford couldn't agree on contract terms.
Bradford hired another artist, James Auckland, to do the series and asked him to redo Gracen's painting.
The plate Auckland produced was effectively a copy of Gracen's work. Gracen sued Bradford for copyright infringement.
The district court granted summary judgment for Bradford, holding that Gracen's painting couldn't be copyrighted because it wasn't original.
Gracen appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/gracen-v-bradford-exchange
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/gracen-v-bradford-exchange
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
