Opinion ID: 166199
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Registration and the Question of Proof

Text: 69 Our conclusion that suits for infringement can be brought only when the copyright is registered leaves open one question: how does a litigant demonstrate to a court that a copyright is registered? While 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) states that the certificate of registration . . . shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright, it does not prohibit the use of other evidence to demonstrate validity. 13 A party may file suit, for example, alleging a registered copyright, and, like any other jurisdiction allegation, it may be challenged in a motion to dismiss or summary judgment. Adequate proof may come in the form of a certificate of registration from the copyright office. If such a certificate is presented, the copyright owner is entitled to a presumption that the copyright is valid, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). Even if the copyright owner cannot present a certificate, the owner can still attempt to prove registration through other means, such as testimony or other evidence from the copyright office. Such other evidence, however, does not entitle a copyright owner to the presumption of validity that § 410 confers on a certificate. Upon proof of registration the copyright is valid and subject to the remedies set forth in Title 17. Once a copyright owner proves registration, absent other defects, the court has jurisdiction and the infringement suit can go forward. 70 In the present case, La Resolana's copyright was not registered nor did it possess a certificate of registration when suit was filed. Sometime after Clay Realtors' filed its motion to dismiss, La Resolana attempted to prove registration with a letter from the copyright office. [Aplt.App. 76] The letter stated, among other things, the copyright office approved the architectural drawings for registration on January 22, 2004 (with a backdated effective date of November 19, 2003), but that the paper certificate could be delayed for up to six months. 71 Ordinarily, in our view, that should have been sufficient evidence of registration. The district court, however, rejected La Resolana's offer of proof, finding the letter to be unauthenticated hearsay. La Resolana has not appealed the court's evidentiary ruling, so we must accept the determination that registration had not occurred at the time the court entered its order of dismissal. As La Resolana argues, and we agree, the better practice for the court in examining its subject matter jurisdiction is to review the jurisdictional facts, relying on extrinsic evidence if necessary. See Radil v. Sanborn W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir.2004); Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Great Britain PLC, 414 F.3d 1169, (10th Cir. July 5, 2005). In light of its evidentiary ruling, however, on the record before the district court, La Resolana had not asserted actual registration of its drawings. Thus, the district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction under § 411. We express no opinion as to whether the jurisdictional defect could be cured after commencement of the infringement action. 14