Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01310/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01310-0/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

 The Defendants who filed Motions to Reconsider will be referred to collectively

as "Defendants."

2

 Defendant Louise Renoir Hernandez did not file, or join in, a Motion for

Reconsideration.

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 are Defendants Beseder Inc., Dror Darel and Tracy

Penwell's Motion for Reconsideration [dkt. 298] and Defendant Jean-Emmanuel

Renoir's1

 Motion for Reconsideration [dkt. 300], both of which seek reconsideration of

the Court's Order [dkt. 291] granting summary judgment for Plaintiff on Count One of

the Amended Complaint. Pursuant to the Court's Order [dkt. 315], Plaintiff filed a

Response to the Motions [dkt. 326], and Defendants Beseder Inc., Dror Darel and Tracy

Penwell filed a Reply [dkt. 330], joined by Defendants Jean-Emmanuel Renoir and

Louise Renoir Hernandez2 [dkt. 332].

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 350 Filed 01/31/06 Page 1 of 13
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

 Plaintiff alleges it holds copyright to the following sculptures (VA numbers are the

copyright regist ration numbers): (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. [Dkt. 190, pp. 6-7].

4

 T he Motion for Summary Judgment [dkt. 165] and Cross-Motions for Summary

Judgment [dkts. 170, 173] referred to Count One of the Complaint [dkt. 1]. While the

- 2 -

Background

The Motions for Reconsideration concern the status of copyright in sculptures

created by Pierre-Auguste Renoir ("Renoir") and Richard Guino ("Guino"). Renoir and

Guino created the sculptures between 1913 and 1917. [Dkts. 298, p. 4; 326, p. 3; 330, p.

2]. The sculptures were published in France as works of Renoir by 1917. [Dkts. 298, p. 4;

330, pp. 2-3; 362, p. 4]. The sculptures were published as Renoir-Guino works in 1974, in

an exhibition for sale held at the Bristol Hotel in Paris, France. [Dkts. 299, exs. A

(catalogue) & B (price list); 300, p. 2; 302, p. 2; 326, p. 7].

Plaintiff Société Civile Succession Richard Guino ("Plaintiff") is a French Trust that

was created pursuant to an agreement between the estate of Pierre-Auguste Renoir and

the estate of Richard Guino. Plaintiff registered the copyright to the sculptures with the

Copyright Office in the United States on June 11, 1984.

Defendant Jean-Emmanuel Renoir sold some of the copyrighted sculptures, or molds

and castings thereof, to Defendants Beseder, Inc., Dror Darel and Tracy Penwell, who

advertised and sold the sculptures and castings at their gallery in Scottsdale, Arizona. 

On March 1, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging, inter alia,

copyright infringement.3

 [Dkt. 190]. Defendants filed Counterclaims asking the Court to

declare that Plaintiff has no copyright in the sculptures. [Dkts. 73, 111].

On September 7, 2005, the Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff on Count

One of the Amended Complaint alleging copyright infringement.4

 [Dkt. 291]. The Court

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 350 Filed 01/31/06 Page 2 of 13
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

Motions for Summary Judgment were pending, the Court granted leave to amend the

Complaint to add a claim for conversion [dkt . 186] and Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint

[dkt. 190]. Count One of the Complaint is substantially identical to Count One of the

Amended Complaint. [Compare dkt. 1, ¶¶ 36-41, with dkt. 190, ¶¶ 36-41]. Thus, the Court's

Order granted summary judgment for Plaintiff on Count One of the Amended Complaint.

- 3 -

found (1) that Plaintiff held copyrights in the sculptures and (2) that Defendants had

infringed the copyrights by reproducing, displaying and selling the sculptures.

Defendants do not challenge the second finding, but ask the Court to reconsider the

first. 

Legal Standard

"[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." 389

Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).

Discussion 

A. The Court's Finding of Copyright Protection under 17 U.S.C. § 302(b) 

In granting summary judgment for Plaintiff, the Court found that the sculptures were

first published in 1917. [Dkt. 291, p. 6]. The Court further found that the sculptures were

not first published as Renoir-Guino works until 1983. [Dkt. 291, p. 9 ("The year 1983 was

the first year that the works were published under Guino's name.")]. The Court treated

1983 as a "'new' date of first publication" and found "that Guino is entitled to copyright

protection in the works as provided by law in 1983 upon the 'new' date of first

publication." [Dkt. 291, p. 9]. Therefore, the Court found that the sculptures "are

entitled to United States copyright protection until the year 2043." [Dkt. 291, p. 10]. 

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 350 Filed 01/31/06 Page 3 of 13
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

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

Code.

6

 As enact ed in 1976, § 302 provided a 50-year term of protection after the death of

t he last surviving author. The term was increased to 70 years by amendment in 1998. See

Eldred v. Ashscroft, 537 U.S. 186, 193, 123 S. Ct. 769, 775 (2003) (holding that the 1998

amendment is constitutional). 

7

 As titled and in relevant part, § 302 provides:

Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 1978 

(a) In general. Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists

from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term

consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death.

(b) Joint works. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors who

did not work for hire, the copyright endures for a term consisting of the life of the last

surviving author and 70 years after such last surviving author's death.

- 4 -

In so finding, the Court applied the copyright protection term provided by 17 U.S.C.

§ 302(b)5

, which provides a copyright term "consisting of the life of the last surviving

author and 70 years6 after such last surviving author's death." Section 3027 only applies

to "a work created on or after January 1, 1978."

In applying § 302(b), the Court did not address whether the sculptures were "created

on or after January 1, 1978," instead focusing on the "new" first publication date as the

basis for applying § 302(b). Publication is irrelevant in determining whether the

copyright protection provided by § 302, enacted in 1976, applies to a particular work.

As the United States Supreme Court explained: 

In 1976, Congress altered the method for computing federal copyright terms. 1976

Act §§ 302-304. For works created by identified natural persons, the 1976 Act

provided that federal copyright protection would run from the work's creation,

not- as in the 1790, 1831, and 1909 Acts- its publication.

Eldred, 537 U.S. at 195, 123 S. Ct. at 776. Because the date of creation- not the date of

publication- is the basis for copyright protection under § 302, § 302(b) cannot apply

based on the 1983 "new" publication date.

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 350 Filed 01/31/06 Page 4 of 13
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

8

 Plaintiffs state that the works were created in 1916. [Dkt. 326, p. 3]. Defendants

state that the works were created between 1913 and 1917. [Dkts. 298, p. 4; 330, p . 2]. That

difference is inconsequential in determining that the works were not "created on or after

January 1, 1978."

- 5 -

Applying the copyright protection provided by § 302(b) was clear error because the

works at issue in this case were not "created on or after January 1, 1978." See § 302(a).

Under the copyright law, "[a] work is 'created' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord

for the first time." § 101. According to the parties, Renoir and Guino created the

sculptures between 1913 and 1917.8

B. Copyright Protections for Works Created before January 1, 1978

Given the finding that § 302 does not apply, the status of copyright protection for

the sculptures remains to be determined. As previously noted, the Copyright Act of

1976 changed the basis of copyright protection from publication of a work to creation of

a work. See Eldred, 537 U.S. at 195, 123 S. Ct. at 776. That change applies to works

"created on or after January 1, 1978." § 302. In making that change, Congress also

provided copyright protection terms for works created before 1978. Currently, copyright

law protects four types of works: (1) works "created on or after January 1, 1978," § 302;

(2) works copyrighted as of January 1, 1978, § 304; (3) works "created before January 1,

1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted," § 303(a); and (4) foreign

works not in the public domain in their country of origin but in the public domain, for

enumerated reasons, in the United States, § 104A. As discussed above, § 302 does not

apply in this case. The sculptures were copyrighted in 1984; § 304 does not apply. The

question is whether the copyright protection of either § 303(a) or § 104A applies. The

application of those sections turns on whether the works passed into the public domain

in the United States. See §§ 303(a) (applies to works not in the public domain before

January 1, 1978) & 104A (foreign works in public domain in the United States).

The copyright statute does not define the phrase "public domain." See § 101

(definitions). Under the 1909 Copyright Act, a work enters the public domain when it is

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 350 Filed 01/31/06 Page 5 of 13
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

9

 This rule should apply to the copyright law as currently enacted. The 1976 Act

changed the basis for computing copyright protection from publication to creation. Eldred,

537 U.S. at 195, 123 S. Ct. at 776. That change will affect whether a work has been published

without copyright protection, but does not change the rule that publication without

copyright protection places a work in the public domain.

- 6 -

published without copyright protection.9

 ABKCO Music, Inc. v. LaVere, 217 F.3d 684,

688 (9th Cir. 2000) ("When a work was published, it lost common law protection. The

owner [of the work] could obtain federal protection for the published work by

complying with the 1909 Act's requirements; otherwise, the work entered the public

domain."). 

Publication in a foreign country affects whether the work is published without

copyright protection, and thereby affects whether the work is in the public domain in

the United States. The Ninth Circuit has held "that publication without a copyright

notice in a foreign country [does] not put the work in the public domain in the United

States." Twin Books Corp. v. Walt Disney Co., 83 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 1996). In that

case, the children's tale Bambi, A Life in the Woods was published in Germany in 1923

without a copyright notice. Bambi was subsequently published in Germany in 1926 with

a copyright notice. Copyright was registered in the United States in 1927 and renewed

in 1958. Id., at 1164. Under the 1909 Copyright Act, copyright must be renewed within

28 years of the commencement of copyright protection or the copyright would expire.

Id., at 1165. Therefore, the 1958 renewal was timely if copyright protection had

commenced with the 1926 publication; untimely if it commenced with the 1923

publication. See id., at 1168. 

The Ninth Circuit dealt first with the question whether the 1923 publication without

notice placed Bambi in the public domain in the United States. Id., at 1165. The Court

found that this was a "heatedly debated question." Id., at 1166 (internal quotation

omitted); accord 2 USA International Copyright Law and Practice § 3[2][b][3] fn. 46

(Paul Edward Geller gen. ed. 2005) ("It has never been clearly established whether a

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 350 Filed 01/31/06 Page 6 of 13
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 -

work only published abroad is to be treated as a published work for purposes of

duration under U.S. law or should be treated as unpublished for these purposes."). The

Court noted that "early courts dealing with the issue indicated that a publication abroad

without any copyright notice, like a publication in this country without any copyright

notice, would also serve to place the published work into the public domain." Ibid. The

Court found that those decisions "were at odds" with Supreme Court decisions holding

"that United States copyright law should not be given extraterritorial effect." Ibid.

Finally, the Court adopted the holding of Heim v. Universal Pictures Co., 154 F.2d 480

(2d Cir. 1946), "finding it to be well-reasoned and the latest appellate pronouncement on

the precise issue" and "recognized as such by the leading treatise on copyright,

Nimmer on Copyright (1994)." Twin Books, 83 F.3d at 1167. The Court read Heim to hold

that "publication without a copyright notice in a foreign country did not put the work in

the public domain in the United States." Twin Books, 83 F.3d at 1167.

The Ninth Circuit next addressed the question whether the 1923 publication in

Germany without notice of copyright commenced the term of United States copyright

protection. Ibid. The Court looked to the language of the 1909 Copyright Act in

rejecting "the proposition that publication abroad without notice of copyright secures

protection under the 1909 Copyright Act." Id., at 1168. The Court reversed the district

court, which found the 1923 foreign publication without notice commenced the

copyright term. Ibid. The Court found that the copyright term commenced in 1926, when

Bambi was republished in Germany with notice of copyright. Therefore, the Court found

that the 1954 renewal was timely. Ibid.

1. Criticism of the Ruling in Twin Books

The Court will follow Twin Books, see infra, but expresses criticism of the rule

announced in Twin Books to avoid "bur[ying] the issue by proceeding in a summary

fashion." Eberhart v. United States, __ U.S. __, 126 S. Ct. 403, 407 (2005) (approving of

the Seventh Circuit's approach in applying Supreme Court precedent after expressing

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 350 Filed 01/31/06 Page 7 of 13
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

- 8 -

doubts). The Twin Books Court's reading of Heim is arguably incorrect, leads to an

unreasonable result, and unduly restricts the copyright restoration provisions of

§104A. 

Heim involved a "mistake of date in the notice of copyright." 154 F.2d at 486. The

work at issue in that case was a song published in Hungary on November 11, 1935

without a copyright notice. Ibid. Copyright in the song was registered on September 14,

1936. Ibid. The Second Circuit construed the 1909 Act, "as to publication in a foreign

country by a foreign author..., not to require, as a condition of obtaining or maintaining

a valid American copyright, that any notice be affixed to any copies whatever published

in such foreign country." Ibid. Concurring, Judge Clark found that "[t]he opinion holds

that American copyright is secured by publication abroad without the notice of

copyright admittedly required for publication here." Id., at 488. Heim, therefore,

arguably stands for the rule that foreign publication without a copyright notice can

commence the term of an American copyright, not the rule that foreign publication

cannot place a work in the public domain in the United States, which the Ninth Circuit

adopted in Twin Books, 83 F.3d at 1167.

Although those rules are closely related, they have dramatically different

consequences. The Heim rule, that foreign publication without notice can commence

the term of copyright, effectively waives, for foreign works, the copyright notice

required to secure copyright protection under the 1909 Act. See 2 Melville B. Nimmer &

David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 7.12[D][2][a] (2005) (the Court in Heim

"concluded that notice in connection with such foreign publications was required

neither to obtain nor to maintain United States copyright"). Applying the Heim rule to a

foreign publication, the term of copyright would commence as of the date of

publication, even if the first publication was in a foreign country and without notice of

copyright. See Nimmer on Copyright, at § 4.01[C][1].

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 350 Filed 01/31/06 Page 8 of 13
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

- 9 -

The Twin Books rule, in contradistinction, provides that a foreign publication

without copyright notice does not commence the term of copyright. Twin Books

expressly rejected "the proposition that publication abroad without notice of copyright

secures protection under the 1909 Act." 83 F.3d at 1168. The Court rejected that

proposition without discussing Heim, 154 F.2d at 486, which supports the proposition

that foreign publication without notice secures copyright protection. Nimmer on

Copyright, § 4.01[C][1]. The Court in Twin Books "reverse[d] the district court's finding

that the copyright for Bambi was secured and commenced in 1923." 83 F.3d at 1168.

Fortuitously, Bambi was republished in Germany in 1926 with notice. Twin Books, 83

F.3d at 1164. That republication enabled the Court to find that "that the initial copyright

for Bambi was secured and commenced in 1926, when it was published with the notice

of copyright required by the 1909 Act." 83 F.3d at 1168. 

The Twin Books rule leads to an unreasonable result when applied to a pre-1978

work published in a foreign country that has not been republished with a notice of

copyright. Under the Twin Books rule, the foreign publication without copyright notice

would neither place the work in the public domain in the United States, see id., at 1167

("publication without a copyright notice in a foreign country did not put the work in the

public domain in the United States"), nor commence the term of copyright, see id., at

1168 (finding that 1923 publication abroad without copyright notice did not commence a

term of copyright protection). Because such a work was "created before January 1,

1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted" it would be protected by

copyright under § 303(a). This is so even in the case of an ancient work. Nimmer on

Copyright, § 4.01[C][1] ("even a work of ancient origin- such as a Greek tragedy that

was published (obviously without notice) millennia ago, but which has not been

republished with a U.S. style copyright notice- is still protected today in this

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 350 Filed 01/31/06 Page 9 of 13
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

10 For a jocular expression of this view, see David Nimmer, An Odyssey Through

Copyright's Vicarious Defenses, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 162, 172-73 (1998), where the author

imagines Achilles asserting copyright protection in The Iliac on grounds that the ancient

publication of that work did not commence the copyright t erm or place the work in the

public domain in the United States. 

- 10 -

country.");10 cf. 2 USA International Copyright Law and Practice § 3[2][b][3] fn. 46

(noting that the Copyright Office has not incorporated the Twin Books rule into its

regulations, continuing to require a copyright application to "state the date of first

publication in any country where the work is first published"). This is also the result, as

discussed below, in this case, even though the owners of the works have enjoyed the

benefits of displays and public sales of the sculptures since 1917. Were the 1917

publication to have commenced the term of copyright, the sculptures would have had

two 28-year terms of copyright protection, and copyright would have expired in 1973.

See Eldred, 537 U.S. at 194, 123 S. Ct. at 775 (under 1909 Act, copyright lasted "28 years

from publication, renewable for an additional 28 years").

The Twin Books rule would prevent a foreign work published without notice from

being eligible for copyright restoration under § 104A, which expressly provides

copyright restoration for foreign works published without notice of copyright. See §

104A(h)(6)(C)(i). Section 104A was enacted to restore "copyrights of foreign holders

whose works, though protected under the law where initially published, fell into the

public domain in the United States." Luck's Music Library v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 1262

(D.C. Cir. 2005); accord Golan v. Gonzalez (sic), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6800, *2 (D. Colo.

Apr. 20, 2005) (section 104A "restores copyright protection to works of foreign

authors"). A prerequisite to restoration under § 104A is that a work is in the public

domain, for enumerated reasons, in the United States. § 104A(h)(6)(C). One of those

reasons is "noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States

copyright law including... lack of proper notice." § 104A(h)(6)(C)(i). The Twin Books

rule provides that a work published in a foreign country without copyright notice is not

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 350 Filed 01/31/06 Page 10 of 13
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

11 One treatise asserts that Twin Books has not settled the question of the affect of

a foreign publication without notice. 2 USA International Copyright Law and Practice §

5[a][i] ("Under the 1909 Act, questions concerning the absence of notice on copies

published abroad before 1978, is still the subject of debat e even in light of an important

decision [Twin Books] in one influential circuit."). The Court can find no post-Twin Books

cases debating that question. 

The question was nearly raised in Condon Art B.V. v. Walker, 1996 U.S. Dist . LEXIS

20708 (N.D. Cal. 1996), filed in August 1996 after Twin Books was filed in May 1996.

Condon Art involved a dispute over works and derivative works created by M.C. Escher,

a Dut ch grap hic artist, indicating his works may have been published abroad. The Court

did not have occasion, however, to address questions raised by foreign publication

because it found "no evidence suggesting that either the original Escher drawings or the

master blocks have ever been subject to a general p ublication within the meaning of the

Copyright Act." Id., at *12. 

12The Copyright Restoration Act, § 104A, would not apply t o the sculptures in the

absence of Twin Books. Section 104A does not apply to works whose term of United

States copyright protection has nat urally expired. Golan, 2005 WL 914754 at *16. In the

absence of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Twin Books, the copyright term for the

- 11 -

in the public domain in the United States, 83 F.3d at 1167, unduly preventing the

copyright restoration of such a work as provided by § 104A(h)(6)(C)(i). 

2. Application of Twin Books to this Case

Despite this criticism, Twin Books governs this case as the most recent decision on

this issue by the Ninth Circuit, or any of the Circuit Courts.11 The sculptures in this case

were published in France as Renoir works by 1917. [Dkts. 326, p. 4; 330, p. 3]. The

sculptures were published as Renoir-Guino works in 1974, in an exhibition for sale held

at the Bristol Hotel in Paris, France. [Dkts. 299, exs. A (catalogue) & B (price list); 300, p.

2; 302, p. 2; 326, p. 7]. Neither party asserts that the sculptures were published with

notice of a United States copyright. Because those publications were in a foreign

country and without notice of United States copyright they "did not put the work in the

public domain in the United States." Twin Books, 83 F.3d at 1167. 

Section 104A is inapplicable because, pursuant to Twin Books, the works have not

passed into the public domain in the United States as required in subsection (h).12

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 350 Filed 01/31/06 Page 11 of 13
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

sculptures would have commenced in 1917. See the district court's order in Twin Books,

877 F. Supp. 496, 498-99 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (finding that the 1923 German publication of Bambi

commenced the term of copyright). If the cop y right in the sculptures commenced in 1917,

this Court's previous discussion would be determinative:

Assuming that the works were regist ered, the term of protection would have

been 28 years with an optional 28 year renewal. The term of cop y right

protection would have nat urally expired in 1973. Thus, the Copyright

Restoration Act does not apply.

[Dkt. 291, p. 8]. 

- 12 -

Section 303 (a) applies because the sculptures were "created before January 1, 1978,

but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted." The sculptures were created

between 1913 and 1917. [Dkts. 298; p. 4, 326, p. 3; 330, p. 2]. Pursuant to Twin Books,

the sculptures have not passed into the public domain. The sculptures were

copyrighted in 1984. 

Section 303(a) provides copyright protection "for the term provided by section 302,"

which is a term of 70 years after the death of the last surviving author. As the Court

previously found: "Renoir passed away in 1919, and Guino died in 1973. Thus, the

sculptures are entitled to United States copyright protection until the year 2043." [Dkt.

291, p. 10]. 

Conclusion

The Court again concludes that the sculptures have copyright protection until 2043.

The Court is of the opinion that there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion

regarding the existence of copyright protection for the sculptures. The existence of

copyright in these sculptures is a question material to the resolution of this case. First,

the existence of copyright, and Defendants' consequent liability for infringement, affect

whether Plaintiff may be awarded actual or statutory damages, costs and attorneys'

fees, injunctive relief, and seizure and delivery of the infringing materials to Plaintiff, as

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 350 Filed 01/31/06 Page 12 of 13
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

13 By Order issued t his same day, the Court addresses Plaintiff's request for

injunctive relief. Plaintiff's damages, among other things, have yet to be determined,

preventing the Court from entering final judgment on the copyright infringement claim

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

- 13 -

prayed for in the Amended Complaint.13 [Dkt. 190, pp. 11-12]. Second, the only claims

remaining are Plaintiff's Lanham Act and common law conversion claims, which

arguably turn on, or are at least are affected by, the resolution of the copyright claim.

Given this situation, an immediate appeal may advance the termination of this case. See

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Beseder Inc., Dror Darel and Tracy Penwell's

Motion for Reconsideration [dkt. 298] and Defendant Jean-Emmanuel Renoir's Motion

for Reconsideration [dkt. 300] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's Order [dkt. 291] granting Plaintiff's

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denying Defendants' Beseder, Inc., Dror

Darel, Tracy Penwell and Jean-Emmanuel Renoir's Cross-Motions for Partial Summary

Judgment is AFFIRMED for the reasons stated in this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order involves controlling questions of law as

to which there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion regarding copyright

protection for the sculptures and that an immediate appeal may materially advance the

ultimate termination of the litigation. 

DATED this 30th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-01310-MHM Document 350 Filed 01/31/06 Page 13 of 13