Opinion ID: 21703
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: In the end, we disagree with the district court only to the extent that it held the conflict between Louisiana community property law and federal copyright law irreconcilable absent congressional intercession. We therefore reverse the court’s grant of summary judgment declaring George alone to be the owner of the blue dog and other copyrights created during his marriage to Veronica. Accordingly, we remand this case, appealed pursuant to Rule 54(b), for entry of an appropriate ruling regarding Veronica’s 51 La. Civ. Code art. 2369.3 cmt. a; see Katherine Shaw Spaht, Co-Ownership of Former Community Property: A Primer on the New Law, 56 LA. L. REV. 677, 699 (1996). 24 rights with respect to the copyrights and for consistent disposition of all remaining issues still pending before that court. Specifically, we instruct the district court to determine on remand which copyrights are subject to the rules of community property law that we announce today, either directly as works created during the existence of the community of acquets and gains or derivatively as works created after the termination of the community but based on pre-divorce works.52 Even though the parties briefed the issue of derivative works in the instant appeal, the district court has not yet ruled on it so that issue is not ripe for our consideration and disposition. In holding that George alone is the owner of all copyrights in the artistic works, the district court denied Veronica’s cross-motion for a summary judgment declaring her economic interests in the copyrights, including determination of which post-divorce works were derivative of the artwork created during the marriage. That ruling, however, was not certified to be a final judgment ready for appeal under Rule 54(b). As we now hold that Veronica does have economic rights with respect to the copyrights at issue, the district court must determine on remand which works are derivative as well. 52 See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (defining “derivative work”), § 103(a) (providing that subject matter of copyright includes derivative works). 25 We further instruct the district court, following such determinations, to enter judgment recognizing Veronica’s entitlement to an undivided one-half interest in the net economic benefits generated by or resulting from copyrighted works created by George during the existence of the community and from any derivatives thereof. Such judgment also must recognize George’s continued entitlement to the exclusive control and management of the five rights in such intellectual property specified in § 106, albeit subject to any duty that he might ultimately be held to owe Veronica to “manage prudently” all such copyrights and derivatives thereof under his control.53 We acknowledge that it is for the state court that has jurisdiction over judicial partition and settlement of the Rodrigue community to determine both the proper method for establishing the value of Veronica’s share of these net economic benefits and the proper procedure for delivery of that share to her, whether that be, for example, by (1) an accounting based on the present value of the appraised fair market value of the fully exploited copyrights and derivatives during their expected lifetimes, (2) periodic accountings and payments to Veronica as the copyrights and derivatives are exploited and proceeds are derived from them, or (3) some other altogether different procedure.54 It follows, of 53 La. Civ. Code art. 2369.3. Cf supra n.22. 54 The court is required to apply the detailed rules in La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(4) in partitioning assets and liabilities 26 course, that Veronica may continue to pursue judicial partition of former community property in that forum. Finally, in the interest of judicial economy, we reserve to this panel limited appellate jurisdiction over this case with respect to future appeals —— if any —— from judgments rendered by the district court on remand in implementation of our instructions. REVERSED and REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. formerly belonging to the community to ensure that each spouse receives property of equal net value. 27