my name is bill through i represent corpus corp this is a duty to defend case from insurance coverage case to be decided under washington state law because the allegations of the underlying complaints variety defamation invasion of privacy and and negligence the insurance policies which can be the pertinent language can be found on five six and seven of the blue brief that used it in a publication so yes you're right the complaint is riddled with the word publication and publish but you've got to remember that this is also a slander and libel complaint life is covered by the policy a critical element publication so just because they use the word publication doesn't mean that they've used it in the way that the policy excludes coverage for the business the publish but publishing is what's your specific point let me just read the whole phrase creating and producing any material in an electronic or printed format for distribution or sale to others for any purpose well now the creating or producing any material in electronic form and presumably that is the translation of the original image into something that can be seen on the web no no that would make every person who had a website a publisher well who happen to be covered by this policy fro it says that the photograph was taken by a photographer and it was transferred to corpse transferred it doesn't say how it doesn't say who did this digital digitizing that you're talking about that that in order to answer that taken by photographer and it was transferred to the courts and then it says corpus sold it doesn't say who did this i mean that if the critical question is who digitized the photo that's not in the complaint and you can't read it into the complaint because we don't know and i think paul not seeing it in the complaint has an option of investigating and bringing that declaratory judgment action and evidence that and if the insurance company wishes to go outside the complaint or has knowledge of facts outside complaints that would exclude coverage than it has a duty to bring a declaration it has to reserve has to defend a reservation of rights but it can bring and bring a declaration the duty to bring a declaratory judgment action is under washington especially not in washington statutes but under the case law one of the it says that you cannot as an insurer go gotten by magic photographers these days take a lot of photos digitally it doesn't say that the photograph that was taken by this professional photographer to that it was taken digitally is transfer of the website that is to somehow electronic means correct can be done otherwise can a file be copied under one thing to another without without an electronic it can be transferred well it doesn't cost to publishing as defined by the policy narrowly defined by the policy as creating and producing i say that the creator of your say that is known that it is possible here under the construing anything that's correct because you are if you want to read creation that broadly that copying one thing to another is creating for the purposes of the statute your art you art for oddly defining an traditional publication or someone is making a prints of something like a poster or something where we're talking about an images posted on a website so that it can be sold and the image comes from the photographer it's not created by us we didn't take the photo we didn't do anything the following it's posted on the web site and it's sold like a commodity are we and the bill of this is a publishing actually the people who buy guess i just wanted to say there's no case law in washington of the ninth circuit on this issue but there are two cases that have decided this issue both federal district court one in new york and one in maine and both of them found that the policy label is functionally identical policy language was unambiguous and applied against insureds like corvus that are not traditional publishers are not random house or scholastic books  struck me is that it was truly a randwick not only for trademark infringement because it created some kind of trick maker and ram acknowledge said you infringed on my trademark i have something just like that the most important as because that case is that there were action getting affirmation that we already were of the first amendment i started out there i saw that when i was researching this issue that i think that because it's the internet is fairly new i think it does raise a lot of issues that are previously not covered i thought it was interesting definition of publishing i think specifically mentions electronic format so i think that's a exclusion or the definition is trying to include that but to answer your question i don't see i don't think that that raises  question of ambiguity i think you still only look at the policy and you only look to the complaint well if you're looking to define the pressure looking at some kind of publication press further in that's fair and maybe analogous to publication so i can't really speak to that i do know that in the underlying action or in the in the trial court corpus didn't raise the did not raise the issue of whether the definition was ambiguous and in fact what i really see this issue a honestly it's the word creating and i think if i think producing it no question it produces i think this really comes down to what is the word creating means and that's right you know if you don't create a van gogh but if you take a print of it and you ju without some kind of process happening in the common definition of creating is to bring into being and some something happens you get that mural from san francisco to web site for sale to millions of people and i would disagree with that that this is a narrow definition of publishing reading and producing any material in electronic or printed or distribution or staying on to others for any purpose i actually find that dr i think really why we're here is what is the to me this is the internet version of publishing what corpus has done and sternly it orbited not take it really what this is about is corvus took these photos in artwork without asking permission but if they hadn't published them so that they could be so came and your time has expired counsel thank you very much he's just argued will be submitted for this reason and he will now hear argument in western states these versus washington