copyrights and without all of them a didn't have standing to bring the suit well more specifically you're right that's generally true but more specifically what we're talking about is that we didn't have exclusive rights to prepare derivative works because that's the alleged infringing conduct  and the agreement in one thousand nine hundred sixty six between the italian parties use some language about all rights that it's very very broad it also had an explicit grant of derivative work rights for adaptations inherently not clear from the face of the document itself it's a grant of all rights to exploit the work and use the work but it reserved to the author your rights such as your rights will not be prejudiced and it never says what your rights are and i think as we argue in our papers your honor your rights here i believe don't apply to the rights to exploit the works because he's granted those all rights but they were because you have the right to get paid under the contract and his moral rights not to have his work about the ride moral rights moral rights yes and the explicit grant of exclusive rights to make derivative works specifically reserves only his moral rights and not his other rights his other rights i think either to be have your name associated with the work as its author and not to have the work modified in a way that is injurious your reputation as an artist that's of europe that's under european law yes and clearly the  of all right so long as your rights are not prejudiced i was referring to the right to be paid even in the event that the agreement was transferred from camp to a third party if you read the whole sentence the all rights shall be transferred to us for the entire world with the right to transfer it in whole or in part to third parties so long as your rights are not prejudiced or limited so what they're saying is we can transfer this agreement to a third party songs or third party will honor your rights to pay the  sounds that are due under the contract it's not saying that you will have rights to continue to exploit the work even after you give us all rights to exploit the work as the movie about incorporating a song into a motion picture is a derivative work at the uses that have to with this is you know brings you how does that have to do with what we're hearing because karl in america the defendants in this case licensed the use to the movie and it was from the swedish movie that carlin eventually acquired the rights from the owner of the swedish movies and it's just that history which makes the swedish really were we that's right and it's also interesting to note that in the composer's website any talks about how he just improvised the music for the swedish film in less than a minute when in fact he had already written and recorded two versions of it in italy two years before and he chooses not to tell the world about michael so in addition to the first sentence that has the all rights grant there's also a second sentence which says you also give us the right to extract one or more musical excerpts from the soundtrack for any adaptations and arrangements that we deem necessary and why would you need that if you got all rights already in the first sentence because under the italian copyright law any grant of of derivative work rights has to be set forth separately that's in article one nineteen of the italian copyright law which the district court was purporting to apply here and also article one thousand nine hundred of the copyright law says that any such grant is produced presumed to be exclusive unless there is a contrary writing and there's no contrary rating here it's a grant to make treatise on italian law and said well exclusivity is not deemed to be essential but the statute itself says whether it's essential or not it's deemed to be exclusive unless there's a contrary writing that says it's not exclusive so we have a specific grant  derivative work rights in the second sentence which has to be in the in the document for purposes of italian copyright law it's just a box you have to check and you're telling copyright law to say that we also are granting the right to make derivative work america do other than to publish sheet music is that its principal i will i will let current counsel talk about the full range of what carlin does but mostly what music publishers do your honor it is they license  copyright act which specifically talks about sheet music publication there's case law in italy that our expert professor get deni relied on to say that those restrictions on print publications don't apply a work that is for music publication generally a contract that is for music publication generally covers all those uses and not just print publication and i see that i have one question with the result been different under american i don't believe well it certainly would have been different and then the result the district court found i think under american law of the transfer of rights to cam would have been exclusive as well we said a case the guy sell against pointer products case in our briefs from this court from the second circuit that said a grant of all rights has an every day meaning everybody knows what all rights mean it means the totality of the transfer including the right to register for copyright and all the exclusive rights that are required for that and anyone who wants to contract it's a fifty year old contract but it's still only a one page contract and quite honestly i don't have a lot to add that judge sullivan did not already cover in his opinion i think that sullivan  thoroughly examined all the issues did the research on a tie in law and u s law and covered it all in his opinion but i do think it would be perhaps useful to go through the one page contract and and set forth the way that i see the language in that contract the contract begins following our understandings and with reference to the agreements with the production house xena's sin for the film provisionally entitled well know m we here by confirm the for the for the following so we know that this contract pertains to enter and an agreement that's going to be for that going to pertain to music in a film so why is this important well because under italian law so this is a contract made in italy among italians italian music publisher and italian composer they know that the rock and when a when a composer writes for a film the film maker the film producer gets the rights to use the music in the film the composer retains his rights to use the music outside the film so this provision in italian law that says producer only gets the rights as what he needs to produce the film composer keeps all the rest so that's the start that's should be the starting point for analysis of ok what are we doing here where arraigned we're making a contract to write for a film then the next paragraph you will compose and perform the musical score for the or aforementioned film ok so what's he going to he's going to write the music for the film he's going to perform the music for the film and by the way that's what he's going to get paid for do to do he's this isn't a term contract it's not will you're going to write for us for six months  whatever you write we get it's not a whatever we'll pay you buy the song you write the score and you can and i mean you compose and perform the score for the film and that's what you get pig then we turn to the really important language of the contract which is the granting it says all rights to use the music that you composed which must mean the score because that's what he was hired to  do from the time of its creation shall be transferred to us for the entire world with the right to transfer in whole or in part to third parties so long as your rights are not prejudiced or limited we have a composer writing for film he gets to keep all the rights except for whatever the fuck the filmmaker needs and his rights so that's all that he gets to keep it outside of what's needed for the film and his rights cannot be so clearly the parties knew how to say moral rights when they meant moral rights it doesn't say so long as your moral rights are not prejudiced or limited it doesn't fit so long as your moral rights are not prejudiced and limited because if we think about this as ok he's writing music for the film and there and the producer is getting the rights to use them in the music in the film cam the music publisher is just an intermediary then the music publisher to do a bunch of things that music in the film but one of the things they're not going to be doing is is making derivatives except as expressly authorized under this agreement which i'll get to in a moment so there's not there shouldn't be more rights even implicated in this agreement because they don't have unfettered rights to make through if it works and cam has conceded that the all rights granting language is not the operable language here because they've told us oh well under italian law a grant of derivative work rights which is the which is the question here do they have the exclusive right to create derivative works khamis told us a grant of derivative work right has to be separately set forth so what they're saying is all rights etc doesn't pertain address park rights they're derivative work rights if at all must come in the next sentence of the grant and what is that say you also give us the right also give us the right so they that means they're giving something else in the second sense you also give us the right to extract one or more musical excerpts from the soundtrack from the soundtrack for any adaption or arrangement that we deem necessary for the best commercial use and to add any lyrics to the individual musical tracks with the full freedom to choose the author and the work so long as your moral rights are not prejudiced so what is cam getting here and this grant of derivative work rights well they're not getting exclusive right because it doesn't say that and and i disagree with my adversary as to whether the law presumes an exclusive grant or or not the law and italy and the united states actually are against presumptions of an exclusive grant where the words are not where the word exclusive is not used or some manifestation of an exclusive grant is is not given and that's in paul marciano's declaration talks about that and judge sullivan talks about that citing the the relevant authorities and in any case doesn't say they get exclusive rights they get very limited rights they get one or more musical excerpts from the soundtrack for the best commercially so what are we talking may of the music publisher right is going to now exploit the music that was in the film and will have the right to modify it let's say they were to make a soundtrack album they were supposed to make soundtrack album but they didn't so they would have the rights to make certain modifications that might make it more commercially viable and that's all they get here they don't get right to full right to make to rivet of works he had all the rights they only got with a grant what he granted to them so the judge solomon  the composer is going to be paid he gets paid for as the composer of the music making up the films soundtrack so he's not getting paid for music that's not in the film soundtrack which was one of the other arguments of i've raised as a ground for months in the district judge didn't address because he found this wasn't an exclusive grant of derivative work rights he's not getting paid for music that's not in the in the film soundtrack he gets paid in paragraph five for directing the orchestra creating the score selecting music to record to disks he does not  paid for the rights to distribute and reproduce the music not anything about modification or derivative works it's nowhere included in his compensation and in both the italian copyright law and us copyright law we have these we have the the ability to divide up the copyright into various rights you have the right to perform a copyrighted work you have the right to distribute a copyrighted work you have to right to make derivative work here we only have two of the rights distribute reproduce not make derivative works that is so that's further evidence of the fact that he's not getting paid for exclusive derivative work rights so how can a grant of rights that provides that an author's rights are not from not prejudiced or limited result in the ultimate prejudice cambs interpretation of so long as your rights are not prejudiced and limited me is that despite that language millie on these rights can be completely and utterly prejudice and limited he has no rights because they have the exclusive rights how can a grant of rights to extract one or more excerpts of soundtrack and to add lyrics to individual tracks be construed as a of all rights to make derivative works exclusive rights to remove works the answer is that it can't i say that my time is about it thank you  very briefly just to touch on a couple of the points most significantly judge sullivan got it wrong and carlin's council just got it wrong the italian copyright act does provide a section one thousand nine hundred this is a one fifty eight in the joint appendix sixty six agreement that said these rights shall not be exclusive that the parties are free to do that but the default position is that the rights are exclusive and judge sullivan absolute rights the rights to make the that up patients in arrangements that are being granted in the hundred sixty six agreement is is that everything that has to be everything in order for them to have standing to bring well that's that's not true under either us or italian law the party only needs to have the exclusive rights to use the particular to make the particular use that's being made so under u s law since the one thousand nine hundred six act went into effect copyright can be infinitely divided in subdivided and different people can have different exclusive rights and each of them has standing to pursue a violation for those right it sounds to me like you are past each other because you're arguing about these specific rights and saying well you got exclusive use of them so you can you can sue here based on those narrow rights and he's saying that because you have narrow rights and all the rights you can bring suit here even on the narrow right and i would add that that's not a feint at finding that judge sullivan made he didn't talk about the scope of the derivative work right he just talked about whether it was exclusive or not he made no finding as to which rights were being granted and so for that reason i think at the very least he needs to go back  right thank you thank you your honor thank you both will reserve decision in this case remainder of the calendar is on submission saw alas the clerk is not yet here i can get that look please adjourn court thank you it's been a long w