Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02389/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02389-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 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

 On March 7 and 8, 2007, subsequent to the filing of his opposition, Livingston filed

additional declarations in support thereof. Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure provides that the party opposing a motion for summary judgment “prior to the

day of hearing may serve opposing affidavits.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Civil

L.R. 56-1, Commentary (noting that “opposing affidavits may be served the day prior to the

hearing”).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETE LIVINGSTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KEYA MORGAN aka KEYARASH MAZHARI

aka KEYA MAZHARI, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-2389 MMC

ORDER DENYING NOVA WINES, INC.’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 71)

Before the Court is the motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary

adjudication, filed February 7, 2007 by defendant Nova Wines, Inc. (“Nova”). Plaintiff Pete

Livingston (“Livingston”) has filed opposition to the motion, including a request for a

continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1

 Nova has filed

a reply. 

Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the

Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b),

hereby VACATES the March 16, 2007 hearing, and rules as follows:

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 115 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

1. With respect to the issue of whether Livingston has standing to assert the instant

copyright claim against Nova, Livingston has raised a triable issue of material fact as to

whether his father, Carl Perutz (“Perutz”), was the author of the photograph in question,

(see Tsadik Decl., filed March 7, 2007, Ex. A (Butler Decl.) ¶¶ 3-6), and Nova has not

demonstrated that Perutz’s rights in such photograph did not pass to Livingston “by the

applicable laws of intestate succession,” see 17 U.S.C. § 201(d).

2. Nova has failed to demonstrate that Livingston’s copyright registration is, as a

matter of law, invalid. Contrary to Nova’s argument, the Ninth Circuit, in Kodadek v. MTV

Networks, Inc., 152 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1998), did not hold that a copyright registration is

invalid unless it is accompanied by a copy created directly from the original; rather, the

Ninth Circuit held that the copyright registration at issue in Kodadek was invalid because

the copies submitted were “reconstructions” that “were not made by directly referring to the

originals or bona fide copies of the originals.” See id. at 1212 (emphasis added) (holding

“[o]nce a bona fide copy is made [by direct reference to the original], subsequent copies

can be made by directly referring to that copy.”). Consequently, Livingston’s admission that

he is not in possession of the original photograph at issue, (see Ioannou Decl. Ex. 4 at 6:7-

15), is not dispositive with respect to the validity of the registration. 

3. Nova has failed to demonstrate that, as a matter of law, (1) the photograph in

question is in the public domain by reason of publication prior to January 1, 1978 without

the requisite copyright notice, (2) any copyright protection in such photograph has expired,

and (3) Livingston’s certificate of copyright protection does not constitute prima facie

evidence of validity of his copyright in such photograph. All such arguments are based on

the 1972 copyright date that appears on the title page of the booklet titled “Marilyn Monroe”

and purportedly authored by Janet Jackson. (See Benett Decl. Ex. 4.) Nova has not

adequately authenticated such booklet, see Fed. R. Ev. 803(16), 901(b)(8)(B) and (C), and

Livingston has submitted evidence calling its authenticity into question, (see Tsadik Second

Opp. Decl., filed March 8, 2007, Ex. C (Rice Decl.) ¶ 5).

4. Nova has not demonstrated that Livingston’s claim for statutory damages and

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 115 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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

2

 In light of the above ruling, Livingston’s request for a Rule 56(f) continuance is

hereby DENIED as moot.

3

attorneys’ fees is, as a matter of law, barred pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 412. Such argument

is based on Livingston’s statement in his August 3, 2004 copyright registration that the date

of first publication was September 21, 1999. (See Request for Judicial Notice Ex. B.) The 

registration in question encompassed a large number of photographs, and Livingston

attests that his reference therein to a September 21, 1999 date of first publication was

intended to apply to only one of the photographs, which photograph is not the basis of his

copyright claim against Nova. (See Tsadik Second Opp. Decl. Ex. D (Livingston Decl.)

¶ 3.)

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED.2

 

This order terminates Docket No. 71.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02389-MMC Document 115 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 3