Copyright law, international

Pages5-7
5
international law update Volume 18, January–March 2012
© 2012 Transnational Law Associates, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
the content and meaning of foreign law, [See Fed. R.
Civ. Pro. 44.1] and Defendant claims that Plainti
had failed to do so. After reviewing several sources
of Iraqi law, the Court discovered nothing to draw
into question that the applicable prescriptive period
ends three years after a Plainti: [1] becomes aware
of the claim and [2] gures out who is the culpable
party or parties.
“As Defendant did not put forth any alternative
translation and has not suggested how the translation
might be inaccurate, we hold that Iraqi law on the
period of prescription has been proven.” [Slip op. 14]
ough Defendant tried to argue that the Everetts
became aware of Defendant’s involvement in 2005,
the Court of Appeals declined to determine such an
issue in a summary judgment context and one which
the district court did not otherwise clearly address.
Since the Court found that Iraqi law did not bar the
suit, the Court must determine whether compelling
considerations of remedial justice warranted
maintaining the action in Louisiana once Plaintis
prove the date on which they got due notice of the
tragedy and the identity of the responsible party.
“First, this action involves a situation where,
through no fault of the Plaintis, an alternative
forum is not available. Although both the alleged
injury-causing conduct and the injury occurred in
Iraq, that country does not provide an available
forum because of paragraph 3 of CPA Order 17 §
4. e Texas prescriptive period [had] expired and,
as Defendant insisted in the Texas proceeding, that
state’s courts potentially lacked personal jurisdiction
over Defendant. e Plaintis lacked any other
forum than Louisiana.
“Second, even were the Plaintis’ claims not
barred in Iraq under CPA Order 17, it would be
extremely inconvenient for either party to litigate
in Iraq. Defendant is a limited liability company
domiciled in Louisiana and the Plaintis are
residents of Texas. For all the progress in Iraqi
security that the United States purchased with its
blood and treasure, that country might reasonably
be avoided as a desirable forum in which Americans
can litigate.” [Slip op. 17]
“Viewing the summary judgment evidence
in the light most favorable to the nonmovants,
we conclude [that] the district court erred in
granting judgment. e suit is barred under
Louisiana prescription law, has not been shown to
be barred under the prescription law of Iraq, whose
substantive law applies to the merits of the action,
and maintenance of the action in Louisiana is
warranted by compelling considerations of remedial
justice. On remand, the factual issue regarding when
Plaintis [actually] received [the] necessary notice
will need to be resolved.” [Slip op. 18].
A dissenter would have upheld the district
court’s decision. “In this case, Sergeant Everett’s
parents chose, as a matter of convenience, to sue
initially in Texas rather than Louisiana. ey thus
exposed themselves to what the majority describes
as Defendant’s compelling motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas. Yet they knew
within three or four months of the accident that their
son had been electrocuted and they were informed
of the potential involvement of Defendant, a Baton
Rouge-headquartered company. ey could have
led a timely suit in Louisiana under Louisiana
law against Defendant. I would conclude that
this chronology did not give rise to compelling
circumstances of remedial justice.” [Slip op. 25].
: McGee v. Arkel Int’l, LLC, No. 10-30393
(5th. Cir. Feb. 16, 2012).
COPYRIGHT LAW,
INTERNATIONAL
U.S. S C  T
C’   C’
     
U R A A 
   
    

Petitioners are orchestra conductors, musicians,
publishers, and others who formerly enjoyed free
access to works in the public domain. ey led a
lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of § 514
of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act in 2001.e
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and
Artistic Works (Berne Convention or Berne), which
took eect in 1886, is the principal instrument that
governs international copyright issues. e United
States joined the Convention in 1989.
In §514 of the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements
Act (URAA), Congress gave works enjoying

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT