Opinion ID: 602079
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability for foreign distribution of videocassettes

Text: 32 The district court also held that Warner's international distribution constituted copyright infringement. The district court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, but its findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 964 F.2d 965, 967 (9th Cir.1992). 33 Section 106 of the Copyright Act gives the copyright owner the exclusive rights to do and to authorize the reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution, performance and display of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 106(1)-(5). For the most part, acts of infringement which occur outside of the jurisdiction of the United States are not actionable under the Act. 3 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 17.02 (1992). MGM/UA contends that its authorization of Warner does not constitute an infringement of § 106 rights because the Producer has no international rights in the Picture. 34 This case is controlled by Peter Starr Prod. Co. v. Twin Continental Films, Inc., 783 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir.1986). While infringing actions that take place entirely outside the United States are not actionable in federal court, we held that an act of infringement within the United States was alleged where the illegal authorization of international exhibitions took place in the United States. Id. at 1442, 1443. 5 Here, the Distributors agree that the authorization to distribute the Picture internationally on home video occurred in the United States. Because this act of illegal authorization occurred within the United States, Peter Starr compels the conclusion that a valid claim of copyright infringement has been raised. The district court did not err in finding for plaintiffs.