Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01310/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01310-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:504 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Joined by Defendant Jean-Emmanuel Renoir. [Dkt. 310].

2

 Those sculptures are (VA numbers are the copyright registration numbers): (1)

Petite Tete De Venus (Tete de la Petite Venus), VA 180-810; (2) La Maternite, VA 180-811;

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Société Civile Succession Richard Guino,

a French Trust, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Beseder, Inc. (d/b/a Rima Fine Art), an

Arizona corporation, et al.

Defendants. 

and Related Actions

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 03-1310-PHX-EHC

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Application for Permanent Injunction and Writ

of Seizure and Impoundment of the sculptures, castings and molds in Defendants

possession that infringe on Plaintiff's copyrights. [Dkt. 297]. Defendants Beseder, Inc.,

CSTPGU, LLC, Dror Darel and Tracy Penwell (collectively, "Defendants") filed an

Opposition.1

 [Dkt. 303]. Plaintiff filed a Reply. [Dkt. 308].

By separate Order issued this same day, the Court has affirmed its grant of summary

judgment for Plaintiff on Count One of the Amended Complaint, finding that

Defendants have infringed Plaintiff's copyrights to the sculptures.2

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 351 Filed 01/31/06 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(3) Buste de Madame Renoir, VA 180-812; (4) Venus Vitrix, VA 180-813; (5) Petite Venus

Debout, VA 180-814; (6) Medaillon Cezanne, VA 180-815; (7) Variante Petit Forgeron, VA

74-833; (8) Le Forgeron, VA 74-834; (9) La Grande Laveuse, VA 74-835; (10) La Laveuse

(Petite Laveuse or "L'Eau"), VA 74-836; and (11) La Laveuse (La Laveuse Moyenne ou

L'Eau), VA 74-837.

3

 Unless otherwise stated, all sections cited are from Title 17 of the United States

Code.

- 2 -

Permanent Injunction

To remedy copyright infringement, a court "may... grant temporary and final

injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement

of a copyright." 17 U.S.C. § 502(a).3

 A permanent injunction is generally proper "when

liability has been established and there is a threat of continuing violations." Mai Sys.

Corp. v. Peak Computer, 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1992) (threat of a violation justified

an injunction). The Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the

copyright infringement claim establishes Defendants' liability for copyright

infringement.

Plaintiff alleges that as of September 19, 2005, Defendants continued to advertise the

sculptures and castings thereof on their website. [Dkt. 297, pp. 6-7 & ex. 2]. Defendants

respond that, on September 10, 2005, they instructed their website designer to remove

the sculptures and castings. [Dkts. 304, p. 2; 305, p. 2]. Defendants further respond that

as of September 21, 2005, the sculptures and castings are no longer displayed on their

website. [Dkt. 304, exs. 1 & 2]. Plaintiff replies that Defendants moved their

advertisements to a new website. [Dkt. 308, pp. 2-3].

Plaintiff further alleges "that Defendants have a history of continuing copyright

violations." [Dkt. 297, p. 7]. Plaintiff did not present any evidence supporting this

allegation until filing its Reply, which includes deposition testimony relating to

Defendants' actions in other cases. [Dkt. 308]. The Court is not inclined to credit an

allegation supported only by materials first filed in a Reply. The allegation is belied by

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 351 Filed 01/31/06 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

 This case was filed on July 10, 2003. [Dkt. 1].

- 3 -

Plaintiff's actions in this case. On July 14, 2003, shortly after this case was filed, the

Court issued a writ of seizure. [Dkt. 9]. On July 17, 2003, the writ was dissolved at

Plaintiff's request [dkt. 17], after Defendants assured Plaintiff they would not remove

the materials from their gallery until the matter was resolved. [Dkt. 12, pp. 1-2]. On July

21, 2003, Plaintiff agreed that the sculptures, molds and castings would be held by

Defendants pending a hearing on Plaintiff's Application for a Preliminary Injunction.

[Dkt. 21]. On September 19, 2003, Plaintiff withdrew its Application for a Preliminary

Injunction, allowing the sculptures, molds and castings to remain in Defendants'

possession without a court order securing those items. [Dkt. 51]. 

Defendants Darel and Penwell have filed declarations stating that the sculptures,

molds and castings, excepting one, have been removed from their art gallery and placed

in a warehouse for storage. [Dkts. 304, p. 2; 305, p. 2]. They further state that the Grande

Venus Victrix remains in the gallery locked in a large glass case because moving it may

cause damage. [Dkts. 304, p. 2; 305, p. 2]. Defendants state that they have not created

any castings of the sculptures since August 2003 and have not sold any since January

2003.4

 [Dkts. 304, p. 3; 305, p. 5]. They further state that while this case is pending they

will not sell the sculptures, molds or castings or move them from the warehouse. [Dkts.

304, p. 2; 305, p. 2]. Finally, Defendants state that they will destroy the sculptures,

molds and castings if ordered by the Court. [Dkts. 304, p. 2; 305, p. 2]. 

These circumstances demonstrate a continuing threat of copyright infringement.

Defendants can easily create a new website, as they allegedly have done, offering to

sell the castings. The sculptures, molds and castings are in Defendants' custody in a

warehouse at an undisclosed location. This location allows Defendants to sell these

materials without garnering public attention, something they could not do when they

were displayed for public view in their gallery and on their website. Defendants can also

create new castings from the molds.

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 351 Filed 01/31/06 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

Despite the risk of damage in transit, the casting of the Grande Venus Victrix should

not remain prominently displayed in Defendants' gallery. The Ninth Circuit has

instructed that in fashioning relief for copyright infringement "the district court should

not be overly concerned with the prospective harm to [defendant]. A defendant has no

right to expect a return on investment from activities which violate the copyright laws."

Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp. of Am., 659 F.2d 963, 976 (9th Cir. 1981) (finding

copyright infringement and remanding for determination of appropriate relief), rev'd on

other grounds, 464 U.S. 417, 104 S. Ct. 774 (sale of video tape recorders found not to

constitute copyright infringement). A final judgment or decree in this matter may

include ordering the destruction of the Grande Venus Victrix. See § 503(b) (final

judgment may include order to destroy). Given that this work may be subject to

destruction, the risk of its damage during movement does not outweigh the need to

remove it from public display in Defendants' gallery to prevent future infringement of

Plaintiff's copyright.

Writ of Seizure and Impoundment

A court "may order the impounding, on such terms as it may deem reasonable, of all"

materials claimed to infringe a copyright. § 503(a). The most recent court of appeals

decision to address the issue stated that "[t]he Copyright Act does not provide a

standard for the district court's decision to grant an order of impoundment; rather § 503

leaves this decision to the discretion of the district court." First Technology Safety Sys.

v. Depinet, 11 F.3d 641, 647 (6th Cir. 1993) (abuse of discretion where writ of seizure did

not accord with procedures contained in Copyright Rules issued by Supreme Court,

was improperly issued ex parte, covered materials not protected by copyright, and as to

those materials not protected by copyright did not accord with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65);

accord 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 14.07[A] (2005)

("The current Act provides no explicit statutory standard to be applied in the exercise

of its discretion."). The purpose of impoundment is "to allow for a possible remedy of

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 351 Filed 01/31/06 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

destruction of the infringing articles." Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Commun.

Servs., 923 F. Supp. 1231, 1263 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (writ of seizure vacated because it did

not give sufficient guidance as to the items to be seized) 

Plaintiff alleges a writ of seizure and impoundment should issue because Defendants

"continue to counterfeit the copyrighted works." [Dkt. 297, p. 9]. No evidence is given

in support of this assertion. There is a threat of further castings because the molds are

now kept in a warehouse at an undisclosed location. As Plaintiff alleges, art purchasers

are wise to the controversy surrounding these sculptures. [See dkt. 190, p. 12 ("The

Guino-Renoir sculptures are well known in the community of art purchasers.")].

Purchasers with such knowledge are unlikely to buy castings of these sculptures

without investigating their authenticity and history. Art purchaser's discernment and an

injunction barring further reproduction best address the threat that Defendants will

create future castings.

There is a threat that Defendants may move the sculptures, molds and castings.

Defendants have not done so during the course of this case, despite there being no

order enjoining them from doing so. Before this Application for Writ of Seizure was

filed, the only restraint on Defendants' ability to move the sculptures, molds and

castings from their gallery was their assurance that they would not do so. [See dkt. 12,

pp. 1-2 & ex. A]. No specific violations of that assurance have been alleged or proven.

The Court will order Defendants to disclose the location of the sculptures, molds and

castings, and the location of the Grande Venus Victrix once it has been removed from

the gallery. The Court will further enjoin Defendants not to conceal, destroy, transfer, or

move those materials pending a final judgment in this case, which may address their

"destruction or other reasonable disposition" pursuant to § 503(b). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application for Permanent Injunction and Writ of

Seizure and Impoundment [Dkt. 297] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 351 Filed 01/31/06 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are permanently enjoined from any

further reproduction and marketing (including but not limited to internet, print, radio,

television) of the following sculptures and any derivatives thereof: (1) Petite Tete De

Venus (Tete de la Petite Venus), VA 180-810; (2) La Maternite, VA 180-811; (3) Buste de

Madame Renoir, VA 180-812; (4) Venus Vitrix, VA 180-813; (5) Petite Venus Debout, VA

180-814; (6) Medaillon Cezanne, VA 180-815; (7) Variante Petit Forgeron, VA 74-833; (8)

Le Forgeron, VA 74-834; (9) La Grande Laveuse, VA 74-835; (10) La Laveuse (Petite

Laveuse or "L'Eau"), VA 74-836; and (11) La Laveuse (La Laveuse Moyenne ou L'Eau),

VA 74-837.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall disclose within five days the

location of the following sculptures and any derivatives thereof that were or are in

Defendants' custody: (1) Petite Tete De Venus (Tete de la Petite Venus), VA 180-810; (2)

La Maternite, VA 180-811; (3) Buste de Madame Renoir, VA 180-812; (4) Venus Vitrix,

VA 180-813; (5) Petite Venus Debout, VA 180-814; (6) Medaillon Cezanne, VA 180-815;

(7) Variante Petit Forgeron, VA 74-833; (8) Le Forgeron, VA 74-834; (9) La Grande

Laveuse, VA 74-835; (10) La Laveuse (Petite Laveuse or "L'Eau"), VA 74-836; and (11)

La Laveuse (La Laveuse Moyenne ou L'Eau), VA 74-837.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days Defendants shall remove the Grande

Venus Victrix from the Rima Fine Art gallery located at 7077 East Main Street, Suite 1 in

Scottsdale, Arizona to a storage location within the District of Arizona. Defendants

shall disclose the storage location of the Grande Venus Victrix within five days of its

removal from the gallery. Once removed to the storage location, Defendants shall not

conceal, destroy, transfer, or move the Grande Venus Victrix. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall not conceal, destroy, transfer, or

move the following sculptures and any derivatives thereof: (1) Petite Tete De Venus

(Tete de la Petite Venus), VA 180-810; (2) La Maternite, VA 180-811; (3) Buste de

Madame Renoir, VA 180-812; (4) Venus Vitrix, VA 180-813; (5) Petite Venus Debout, VA

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 351 Filed 01/31/06 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

180-814; (6) Medaillon Cezanne, VA 180-815; (7) Variante Petit Forgeron, VA 74-833; (8)

Le Forgeron, VA 74-834; (9) La Grande Laveuse, VA 74-835; (10) La Laveuse (Petite

Laveuse or "L'Eau"), VA 74-836; and (11) La Laveuse (La Laveuse Moyenne ou L'Eau),

VA 74-837. 

DATED this 30th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 351 Filed 01/31/06 Page 7 of 7