Opinion ID: 602079
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grant of rights

Text: 18 The Special Master found, based on extrinsic evidence, that UA received only theatrical and television rights in the Picture. He noted the following: the drafter of the Agreements admitted that the basic deal was only for theatrical and television rights; the Producers deleted references to non-theatrical rights in the first draft, although MGM/UA had apparently (possibly in bad faith) left some of those references in; the owner of the musical recording rights had given the Producer only the rights to theatrical and television exhibition; and there was evidence that MGM/UA employees believed they did not own non-theatrical rights and could not license them to third parties. These conclusions were not clearly erroneous. 19 After hearing conflicting testimony about industry practice in the 1960s, the Special Master concluded that home video rights were properly characterized as non-granted non-theatrical rights. The Distributors argue that this misstates industry practice in the 1960's. They assert that home video should be treated as a separate category of rights, neither theatrical or non-theatrical in nature, because it is a completely new medium. In support of this, they cite Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851, 853-54 (9th Cir.1988). However, Cohen holds only that home video rights are not included in the category of television rights. Cohen contains no discussion of whether home video is or is not a non-theatrical right. 20 In essence, the Distributors argue that the Special Master should have believed their qualified witnesses rather than adopting the flimsy opinions of plaintiffs' witnesses. The credibility of witnesses, however, is an area in which we give great deference to the trier of fact. In the absence of clear authority on the subject, the Special Master had both the opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility and sufficient evidence to support his conclusions.