Page:Seiler v. Lucasfilm.pdf/6

1321 reconstructions correctly reflect the content of the originals. Rule 1008 provides:

"When the admissibility of other evidence of contents of writings, recordings, or photographs under these rules depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the question whether the condition has been fulfilled is ordinarily for the court to determine in accordance with the provisions of rule 104. However, when an issue is raised (a) whether the asserted writing ever existed, or (b) whether another writing, recording, or photograph produced at the trial is the original, or (c) whether other evidence of contents correctly reflects the contents, the issue is for the trier of facts to determine as in the case of other issues of fact."

Seiler’s position confuses admissibility of the reconstructions with the weight, if any, the trier of fact should give them, after the judge has ruled that they are admissible. Rule 1008 states, in essence, that when the admissibility of evidence other than the original depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the trial judge generally makes the determination of that condition of fact. The notes of the Advisory Committee are consistent with this interpretation in stating: “Most preliminary questions of fact in connection with applying the rule preferring the original as evidence of contents are for the judge …[t]hus the question of … fulfillment of other conditions specified in Rule 1004 … is for the judge.” In the instant case, the condition of fact which Seiler needed to prove was that the originals were not lost or destroyed in bad faith. Had he been able to prove this, his reconstructions would have been admissible and then their accuracy would have been a question for the jury. In sum, since admissibility of the reconstructions was dependent upon a finding that the originals were not lost or destroyed in bad faith, the trial judge properly held the hearing to determine their admissibility.

3. Does 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) require the admission of the copies of Seiler’s work deposited at the Copyright Office?

Seiler contends that § 410(c) of the Copyright Act mandates the admission of his reconstructions in evidence despite the district court’s ruling that they are excluded under the best evidence rule. Section 410(c) provides: "In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made before or within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate. The evidentiary weight to be accorded the certificate of a registration made thereafter shall be within the discretion of the court."

Seiler argues that this section requires the admission of the copyright certificate he obtained on his reconstructions in 1981 and, more importantly, the attached “work” that Seiler claims is incorporated in the certificate by reference. We hold that § 410(c) has no application here, because the certificate of copyright has no bearing upon the ultimate facts Seiler seeks to prove by its submission.

Section 410(c) makes the copyright certificate prima facie evidence of “the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.” Seiler’s copyright claims