Seiler v. Lucasfilm
808 F.2d 1316 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The best evidence rule, codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 1002, applies to creative works like drawings when their content is the central issue of a legal dispute. Secondary evidence, such as reconstructions, is inadmissible if the proponent of the evidence lost or destroyed the original works in bad faith.
Facts:
- Lee Seiler, a graphic artist, contended that he created and published science fiction creatures called 'Garthian Striders' in 1976 and 1977.
- In 1980, George Lucas and others released the motion picture 'The Empire Strikes Back,' which featured large, mechanical creatures known as 'Imperial Walkers.'
- Seiler alleged that the Imperial Walkers infringed on his copyright for the Garthian Striders.
- In 1981, after the movie's release, Seiler obtained a copyright certificate for his Garthian Striders.
- To obtain the copyright, Seiler deposited 'reconstructions' of his original drawings, as he could not produce any original works that pre-dated the movie's release.
Procedural Posture:
- Lee Seiler filed a copyright infringement suit against George Lucas and others in U.S. District Court.
- Prior to trial, the district court held a seven-day evidentiary hearing regarding the admissibility of Seiler's reconstructions of his artwork.
- The district court judge made a finding of fact that Seiler had lost or destroyed the original drawings in bad faith.
- Applying Federal Rule of Evidence 1004(1), the district court ruled Seiler's reconstructions were inadmissible as secondary evidence.
- The district court then granted summary judgment in favor of Lucas, as Seiler had no admissible evidence to proceed.
- Seiler (appellant) appealed the summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Lucas et al. as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the best evidence rule apply to artistic drawings in a copyright infringement claim, thereby precluding the admission of secondary evidence like reconstructions when the proponent is found to have lost or destroyed the originals in bad faith?
Opinions:
Majority - Farris, Circuit Judge
Yes. The best evidence rule applies to artistic drawings, and reconstructions are inadmissible when the originals were destroyed in bad faith. The court held that drawings are 'writings' within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 1001(1) because they are the 'equivalent' of 'letters, words, or numbers.' The primary purpose of the best evidence rule is to prevent fraud and inaccuracies that arise from faulty memory, concerns which are directly implicated in this case where Seiler sought to use reconstructions created years after the originals and after the release of the allegedly infringing film. Because the contents of Seiler's original drawings were the central issue in proving 'substantial similarity' for his infringement claim, the rule required production of the originals. Under Rule 1004(1), secondary evidence is only admissible if the originals were lost or destroyed, but not if this was done in bad faith. The preliminary question of bad faith is for the judge to decide under Rule 1008, not the jury. Finally, the copyright certificate under 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) does not compel admission of the reconstructions because it only creates a presumption about the copyright's validity, not that the deposited reconstructions are accurate representations of non-existent originals.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of the best evidence rule, extending its application beyond textual documents to visual artworks like drawings. It solidifies the principle that when the content of a creative work is the very thing being disputed, the 'original document rule' applies with full force to prevent fraudulent or memory-tainted reconstructions from being used as evidence. The decision also reinforces the trial judge's critical gatekeeping function under the Federal Rules of Evidence, affirming that a judge's preliminary finding of bad faith in the destruction of evidence can be dispositive, preventing a case from ever reaching a jury.
Unlock the full brief for Seiler v. Lucasfilm