## Facts

- Lee M. Seiler was a graphic artist who claimed he created science-fiction drawings in 1976 and 1977 depicting creatures or machines he called “Garthian Striders.”
- Lucasfilm, Ltd. and related defendants released *The Empire Strikes Back* in 1980, which included “Imperial Walkers.”
- Seiler alleged the Imperial Walkers copied protectable expression from his earlier Garthian Strider drawings and sued for copyright infringement.
- Seiler did not register the claimed drawings until 1981—after the film’s release.
- For his registration, Seiler submitted drawings that were “reconstructions” of what he said the earlier originals had looked like, rather than the original 1976–1977 drawings.
- In the infringement action, Seiler sought to introduce the reconstructed drawings (including the copies deposited with the Copyright Office) to prove the content of his alleged pre-1980 works and to compare them to the Imperial Walkers.
- Seiler could not produce the original drawings and lacked reliable documentary proof that the alleged originals existed before the film’s release.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing on whether the reconstructions and other secondary evidence were admissible under the best-evidence rule.
- The district court found the originals were unavailable due to Seiler’s bad faith and excluded the reconstructions and other secondary evidence offered to prove the originals’ contents.
- After excluding Seiler’s secondary evidence, the district court granted summary judgment for Lucasfilm and the other defendants. Seiler appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the best-evidence rule (Fed. R. Evid. 1002) applied to Seiler’s attempt to prove the content of his alleged original drawings through reconstructed drawings.
2. Whether Fed. R. Evid. 1004(1) barred admission of secondary evidence when the originals were lost or destroyed by the proponent in bad faith.
3. Whether Fed. R. Evid. 1008 required a jury (rather than the judge) to decide factual disputes relevant to admitting secondary evidence of the drawings’ contents.
4. Whether 17 U.S.C. § 410(c)’s evidentiary effect of a copyright registration required admission of Seiler’s reconstructed deposit copies or limited exclusion under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- The court held the best-evidence rule applied because Seiler’s claim required proof of the contents of his drawings to permit a substantial-similarity comparison with the Imperial Walkers.
- The court agreed that Seiler’s proffered exhibits were not originals; they were reconstructions made after the film’s release and were offered as proof of what the alleged originals contained.
- The court upheld the district court’s finding that Seiler’s inability to produce the originals resulted from bad faith, which prevented him from using secondary evidence under Rule 1004(1).
- The court rejected Seiler’s argument that Rule 1008 required sending the admissibility dispute to the jury; the trial judge properly resolved the preliminary admissibility questions.
- The court held § 410(c) did not override the best-evidence rule or require the reconstructions (including Copyright Office deposit copies) to be admitted as proof of the originals’ contents.
- With the reconstructions excluded, Seiler lacked admissible evidence to prove the content (and, effectively, the existence and timing) of the claimed pre-1980 drawings, so summary judgment for defendants was proper.

## Legal Principles

- A copyright plaintiff must present admissible evidence of the protected work’s content to allow comparison with the accused work when substantial similarity depends on the work’s expressive details.
- Fed. R. Evid. 1002 generally requires an original writing, recording, or photograph to prove its content when the content is at issue; drawings fall within this rule when offered to prove what the images depict.
- Fed. R. Evid. 1004(1) permits secondary evidence of content only if the originals are lost or destroyed without bad faith by the proponent; if loss or destruction is in bad faith, secondary evidence is excluded.
- Under Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) and 1008, the judge may decide preliminary questions governing admissibility under Rules 1002 and 1004, including whether the proponent acted in bad faith so as to block secondary evidence.
- 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) provides a presumption tied to copyright registration, but it does not convert reconstructed deposit materials into originals and does not displace the Federal Rules of Evidence governing proof of content.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Lucasfilm because Seiler could not produce the original drawings he claimed were copied, and the district court permissibly found their absence resulted from Seiler’s bad faith; under the best-evidence rule, that finding barred Seiler from proving the drawings’ contents through reconstructed copies, leaving no admissible basis for a substantial-similarity showing.


Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd., 797 F.2d 1504 (1986)