producer and as the only author of these films let's go on i believe it's clear that there are first of all there is no definition of author and there is no definition of the producer as being the author in this case the court what it did instead was employ common law principles it said well there's a work for hire statute here and in the united states the collaboration doctrine appears to be and we also don't have the same parties other than our we also don't have the same films we don't have there's no indication that the same expert said we don't know what evidence was introduced in what was the mexican law on this issue and who was the officer under mexican law zechariah restaurant and to assist the court in making that determination he heard testimony from expert witnesses said correct based upon his hearing and considering the expert witnesses he then came up with a decision of what the mexican law w it's you have to strictly adhere to the code but don't you have to argue before us that the experts are wrong maybe that's what you want you and current experts were wrong i think the core ignores some of the uniform uniformity in opinion on mexican law to determine who should be the name the author and the keeper issue and the key factor is the mexican collaborative works doctoring is rated not apply u s law he looked at that doctrine and significantly arts x expert at trial never talked about that doctrine and it is the key to understanding judge ray's ruling you say your expert never  component but the producer the it a corporation or an individual owns all moral and has from o'neill rice in the whole so long as the producer gives attribute to the individual contributors now the question the judge already decided during the first trial phase which is before the court was not whether columbia was the author or the successor to the author or whether art was the author or the successor to the author but whether the production company was the author or this class  contributors was the author of the motion picture and it's very telling to hear arts council today say that the key is moral rice because only the author under mexican law rights and yet arts expert was forced to concede a trial that under the collaborative work stocker and the producer of the motion picture  have a corporation or an individual holds all of the rice including moral rights except for the right of action so therefore it is the producer who has all those rights in the entire picture as opposed to the opponents who under mexican law should be considered the author author of the motion picture is the majority of all the artistic contributors and i submit that the reason why there is no reference to such a law is that single person is the author of a motion picture doesn't i want to talk a little bit about the collateral estoppel the fifth circuit has addressed the exact same issue that is before this court and that issue is for purposes of restoration under one o four am the copyright act under mexican law who is the author and art was here today was a party an author could only be alive individual now regardless of the nuances of the arguments made there and the nuances of the arguments made here mark was there are quite a fair opportunity to raise whatever argu of the this is not much just there's no question if the court looks at the opinion that the question of who is the author under mexican law for restoration purposes was decided in that case it was decided against  there is no question that are made the same argument here that it relies on there that it relies on here that only a natural person and not a corporation can be an author those were that argument was rejected the point that the majority of the authors under mexican law is the author of the motion picture was squarely rejected but the question of the moral rights was that also  unless indeed that was one of our arguments there that is that only the author can hold moral rights and individuals can't hold moral rights if you we did see only the individuals can be the author but that's not true because under the collaboration doctrine the producer be it an individual or a corporation holds all of the rights except the right about tradition now mark and it's under mexican law attribution is a moral right those who contribute yes and under the collaborative work doctor and it is a condition of the producer owning all of the argue we would argue your honor that columbia is not required to file a cross appeal because colombia is not seeking to expand the rights and the ruling granted by judge ray but merely urges the court to adopt an alternate rationale for reaching that same result and we also would point out that when we made the motion before a judge ray the fifth circuit had not ruled certainly thank you thank you is the author the trial court's finding that the producer is the author and the only author is incorrect the collaboration document even says that the at least the right after abusing for example the moral right a moral zero two five six two two two and zero three five five four three where mr reilly we're we're back to you you have ten minutes