## Facts

- Lee M. Seiler, a graphic artist, claimed he created science-fiction creature drawings called “Garthian Striders” in 1976–1977.
- Defendants produced the 1980 film *The Empire Strikes Back*, featuring four-legged “Imperial Walkers,” which Seiler alleged infringed his drawings.
- In 1981, Seiler registered a copyright and deposited “reconstructions” rather than the alleged original Strider drawings.
- Before trial, the district court conducted a multi-day evidentiary hearing to determine whether Seiler’s comparison exhibits could be admitted.
- Seiler produced no original Strider drawings and lacked contemporaneous documentation establishing the drawings’ pre-1980 existence.
- The district court found Seiler had testified falsely, acted in bad faith regarding the originals’ loss or destruction, and misrepresented the reconstructions’ nature.
- Applying the best evidence rule, the district court excluded the reconstructions and other secondary evidence of the Striders’ contents, then granted summary judgment for defendants because Seiler lacked admissible proof of his work.

## Issues

1. Whether Seiler’s drawings were “writings” whose contents had to be proved by the original under the best evidence rule.
2. Whether the district court properly found Seiler lost or destroyed the originals in bad faith, making secondary evidence inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 1004(1).
3. Whether Fed. R. Evid. 1008 required a jury, rather than the judge, to decide factual questions bearing on admissibility of secondary evidence.
4. Whether the presumption of validity under 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) required admission of Seiler’s deposited reconstructions despite the best evidence rule.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the exclusion of Seiler’s reconstructions and related secondary evidence.
- The court held the best evidence rule applied because the drawings’ visual contents were central to proving substantial similarity and copying.
- The court upheld the district court’s finding that Seiler acted in bad faith in losing, destroying, or withholding originals, triggering Rule 1004(1)’s bar on secondary evidence.
- The court held Rule 1008 did not require a jury determination on the bad-faith destruction question; admissibility foundations were for the judge under Rule 104(a).
- The court held § 410(c)’s presumption of validity did not override the Federal Rules of Evidence and did not compel admission of reconstructions where originals were unavailable due to the proponent’s bad faith.
- With no admissible evidence of Seiler’s copyrighted work, summary judgment for defendants was proper and was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- The best evidence rule applies to visual art and drawings when a party seeks to prove the contents of the work.
- In a copyright infringement case, proof of substantial similarity requires admissible evidence of the copyrighted work’s contents; absent that evidence, an infringement claim fails as a matter of law.
- Fed. R. Evid. 1004(1) permits secondary evidence of contents only if originals are lost or destroyed without the proponent’s bad faith; bad faith makes secondary evidence inadmissible.
- Foundational facts governing admissibility under the best evidence rule, including whether originals were lost or destroyed in bad faith, are decided by the judge under Fed. R. Evid. 104(a); Rule 1008 does not require a jury determination on those admissibility conditions.
- The prima facie effect of copyright registration under 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) does not displace evidentiary requirements for proving a work’s contents and does not mandate admission of reconstructed deposits when originals are unavailable due to the registrant’s bad faith.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants after upholding exclusion of reconstructed drawings under the best evidence rule, holding that bad-faith loss or destruction of originals bars secondary evidence and that copyright registration’s statutory presumption does not compel admission of inadmissible proof of a work’s contents.


Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd., 808 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir. 1987)