how how how does it know that the redirection agreement is terminated i mean it certainly was reasonable for corbis to say we're happy to do this but we want new sports written consent or approval that happened so even though there was no writing by the express terms of the agreement no writing was required and that's why we say it is the rule of controlling we don't need to have a right and to terminate that agreement the conduct of the party with clear essentially not the relevant it's irrelevant when it was revoked because it was just about the direction of royalties not the control of licensing rights and in the redirection agreement which your client signed there's a new sport had the authority to grant all rights and licenses under the new sport corpus contract that why that for all images produced under that contract which would include the images of your client the why doesn't that redirect us back to the news or cor contract which should have to be terminated in writing well st of all the entire new sport corpus agreement was never going to be terminated because it was a whole bunch of other photographs that were controlled by new sports so the cross appeal you know none of the appellant's arguments call into question the district courts well reasoned conclusions that under the unambiguous terms of the relevant agreements getty images display and distribution of the photographs that issue was authorized and getting images had no reason to think otherwise the undisputed facts show that video images obtained valid contractual rights to display and distribute the photos doing on broken chain of authorization that began with z leads to the chain of authority and judge livingston's questions about the new support contract new contract was exactly on point zuma had its own contractual relationship with corpus to distribute si photographs including both photographs azumah owned and those that zuma licensed on behalf of others zuma became aware that another photo agency new sport had a contract with portis that paid a higher royalty rate than jim is contracted it entered into an arrangement with news sports c e o i would zuma would start submitting its own photos to corvus under the new sport contract using new sports filed transmission protocol rather than its own when zuma did s in writing that new sport was the license or the terms of the new sport or his contract as just less livingston's question recognize our fatal to a balance claims it contains a minimum term of three years and are survival terms of another three years that covers the entire period at issue in this case it allowed corvus to assign its rights and to sub license its rights to other agencies it required written notice of terminations of the agreement by new sport it's undisputed that new sport never provided written there's a determination you heard mr freeman acknowledged that earlier during his argument and it wouldn't matter for purposes of this dispute anyway because the survival terms still would have covered the entire  resigned once walker resigned and started giving oral notice to terminate the redirection agreement why is that not effective because the contract called for written terminations corvus repeatedly made clear to zoom not that revolver terminate the contract the contra costa written termination that's the summa corpus contract right i mean why correct and not that and there's no such provision in the redirection agreement i mean this thirteen because the licenses to use the photos had already been granted for the six year term in two thousand and eleven and two thousand and twelve so even if the redirection agreement which just simply addresses where the checks are going to be sent even if that got terminated at some later point in time that doesn't terminate corpuses right to use the photos for the entirety of the lights period which had already been granted if you give an agent authority to license your words and you can terminate the agent's authority to grant new li we don't agree that new sports authority to license the works was terminated but it's irrelevant to the district court's holding and it's not material to the case because there's no dispute that that news corp corpus contractor hired written germination to corvus repeatedly advised new sport and corbis that written notice was required and it is absolutely understood that no written notice was ever provide the undisputed record shows precisely the opposite getty images obtained representations and warranties from the c g as to its rights in all of the photographs obtained from corpus prior to ingesting any of them and deal with it on newman's own c testified that it's standard industry practice and do my own practice to rely on representations and warranties from other agencies rather than investigating the problem it's an individual photos one by one getty images keep in mind this this and this migration of photos this ingestion of the corpus but it was seven million photos getty images worked extensively with corpus over a period of weeks to understand corpuses systems and then met a data for all of the photographs getty images did extensive testing of tens of thousands of images to ensure the photographs would be migrated correctly and successfully from corpus to get the images it reached out to each rights holder identified by corbis at the source of the photographs in court assistance to obtain the separate approval prior to migrating the images even though they had a contractual right to migrate the images without that had identified a new sport at the source an original license for of all of the images at issue new sports specifically authorized that migration of its entire collection thank or was over to get images in advance of any transfer and again this record of careful and meticulous licensing testing and approvals the notion that getty images intended to abet or facilitate copyright infringement and left it in there that negates the intention ranjan and there's a we set a case on page thirty eight dollars of our opening brief the mil's b net which case out of the central district of california from last year to make exactly that point that that the inclusion of the plaintiff's information in the made today that negates the intent it's not evidence the contrary and even before reaching getty images authorization defense the district court had correctly concluded that appe section twelve or two claims fails as a matter of law i'd like to just touch briefly on what we contend is the only mistake that the district court made which was the denial of reasonable attorney fees the copyright act  we have here is simply a statement of the factors and a conclusion and so there's no basis for this court to evaluate what the district court reasoning was and make the determination as to whether the district court of use is discretion because we don't and can i just ask you to address very briefly the district court's analysis of the of the attorneys fees issue i mean is gary cursory and how do we have a basis to review that given that it's really just a statement of really comes and i'm told while the motion for a plaintiff down with an objective then reasonable claim and i get the message right off the bat the one thing that i would like to address on that plane is that the principle argument they're making for why it was objected and reasonable they're had made a motion for summary judgment on the question of ownership ability of copyright and in painstaking detail we made the case thirty one thousand seven hundred and thirty three images all of which were the board of i decorated and there is another eleven thousand five hundred that are pending before judge schofield is deprecate and then the balance is about four thousand seven hundred that was john's who was an intervenor so basically the forty eight thousand that we initially this case with respect to the other arguments in attorney's fees it's mostly just a job against the original evil but which is even understandable but there's really no conduct that they brought the district court's attention during the three  make the st is mr frame and raised to two thousand and twelve agreement which contains the three year survival term he doesn't even even he doesn't contend that the redirection agreement was terminated prior to tw to license zuma press photos nd point is with regard to mr walker sessa monique he is confusing the timeline and leaving out the critical page which is joint appendix eleven o four i direct the court to that where mr walker testifies on equivocally that he had no conversations with getty images about zuma press until after the photos had appeared on the website and zuma press had had raised the issue with getty images and getty images had reached out to mr walker as part of its own investigation of the claims that testimony is uncontroverted and the final point i'd like to address in the context of the attorney's fees is mr freeman's apparent argument that we were required to bring motions to compel  motions for sanctions before the district court and further burden the court with with the plaintiffs conduct here in order to receive attorney fees under the copyright act we're not appealing the denial of answers motion we're not required to burden the court with extra motion practice in order to get attorney fees under the copyright as successful against i think it's certainly not the rule they don't cite any case law for it and i think you'd be exceedingly