BHAKTIVEDANTA BOOK TRUST COPYRIGHT — COURT TRANSCRIPT
As follows is a partial transcript of the court case involving Srila Prabhupada's books and copyrights. Due to missing pages and damage to pages of the document acquired, this transcript is not complete. However it is enough to reveal the inner workings of the famous case, which to this day is still the subject of much contention.
You may download a digital scan file of 5 pages of the original court transcript document, typed below, at
http://www.vedic.com.br/office/bbt_case.pdf![]()
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CENTRAL DISTRICT
* * *
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State the date on which Robert Grant [Ramesvara dasa] was appointed as a "BBT Trustee" as alleged in paragraph 39 of your complaint.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Discovery and investigation are ongoing in this matter and BBTI reserves the right (but does not undertake) to supplement these responses as it discovers more information. Subject to the foregoing objections, both general and specific, and without waiving any of the them, plaintiff BBTI responds to this interrogatory as follows:
Robert Grant was officially confirmed as BBT Trustee by the GBC in the Spring of 1975 during the annual GBC meetings in Mayapura, West Bengal, India. Defendant Hans Kary attended the GBC meetings and approved the resolution appointing him. Upon information and belief, Ramesvara dasa was previously appointed by Srila Prabhupada as BBT trustee or "acting" BBT trustee some time during the twelve months before the 1975 GBC meetings.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: State precisely how ISKCON, Inc. acquired title to the various copyright registered in the name of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO 14: Plaintiff BBTI objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous, including specifically and without limitation with regards to the phrases "state precisely", "acquired title" (which is vague as to what kind of title) and "copyrights" (which is vague in that it does not specify whether it means only federal copyrights under the United States Copyright Act). BBTI objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of any information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. Subject to the foregoing objections, both general and specific, and without waiving any of them, plaintiff BBTI responds to this interrogatory as follows:
ISKCON, Inc. did business under the names "Bhaktivedanta Book Trust" and "BBT" from roughly 1971 until 1976. During the relevant time period (1966 through 1976) Srila Prabhupada's books, including all artwork, glossaries and elaborate purports, were "works for hire" created by ISKCON, Inc. ISKCON, Inc. owned common law copyrights in them from the time they were created, and become the owner of Federal copyrights as soon as they were published with a copyright notice.
BBTI contends that the California trust document dated May 29, 1972 never created a valid trust. However, if it did, and if any of the copyrights ever were owned by that trust, ISKCON, Inc. owned beneficial title to such property because ISKCON, Inc. was the trust beneficiary named in that document.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify the owner of the copyrights which were registered in the name of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust the day before ISKCON, Inc. first acquired title to those same copyrights.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: BBTI objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of any information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. BBTI further objects to this interrogatory as compound, vague and ambiguous and unintelligible. The interrogatory apparently asks BBTI to identify the person or entity who owned the copyrights, on the day before ISKCON, Inc. acquired title to them, which, at some time or another, were registered in the name of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Or alternatively, it asks BBTI to identify the person or entity who owned the copyrights, on the day before ISKCON, Inc. acquired title to them, which, at that same time, were registered in the name of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Or yet alternatively, it asks BBT to identify the person owner of those copyrights which, on the day before ISKCON, Inc. first acquired title to them, were registered in the name of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Another alternative meaning, which BBTI rejects as absurd, is that the interrogatory refers to works, the registrations for which were filed on the day before ISKCON Inc. became owner. BBTI also objects to the interrogatory on the ground that it appears to be based upon an erroneous assumption that someone other than ISKCON, Inc. owned certain copyright that [...]
[...missing page/part...]
* * *
INTERROGATORY NO. 18: State all FACTS on which you base the contention contained in paragraph 41 of your complaint that in July of 1976 Mr. Murphy formally executed assignments transferring ownership of the intellectual propertly to ISKCON of California, Inc.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: BBTI objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of any information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. Discovery and investigation are ongoing in this matter and BBTI reserves the right (but does not undertake) to supplement these responses as it discovers more information. Subject to the foregoing objections, both general and specific, and without waiving any of the them, plaintiff BBTI responds to this interrogatory as follows:
Mr. Murphy recalls formally executing the assignments. BBTI is not certain that this was done in July of 1976 and believes it may have been later that year. Investigation and discovery is ongoing, and BBTI reserves the right (but does not undertake) to supplement this answer later.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19: State all FACTS on which you base your contention contained in paragraph 41 of the complaint that ISKCON, Inc. either owned outright or owned beneficial title to various copyrights registered in the name of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: BBTI objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of any information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. Discovery and investigation are ongoing in this matter and BBTI reserves the right (but does not undertake) to supplement these responses as it discovers more information. Subject to the foregoing objections, both general and specific, and without waiving any of them, plaintiff BBTI responds to this interrogatory as follows:
BBTI believes that ISKCON, Inc. owned the copyrights outright because the works in question were "works for hire" created by ISKCON, Inc. ISKCON, Inc. supplied the employees who worked on the books with their materials and equipment. ISKCON, Inc. also supplied each of them with room and board and with a stipend for personal or family expenses. Such employees included those who worked in the art department, photography department, Sanskrt editors, Bengali editors, English editors, design and layout specialists, and proof readers, among others.
BBTI contents that the California Trust Agreement dated May 29, 1972 did not create a valid trust and that the book publishing and distribution operations of the Movement were in fact never operated according to provisions of that document. However, in the even the Court finds that that Trust Agreement created a legally valid trust which at the time in question (i.e, 1976) owned some or all of the copyrights registered at that time in the name Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, ISKCON, Inc, was the beneficiary of that trust, and therefore held beneficial title to those copyrights.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Set forth in detail the authority by which Mr. Murphy acted when he executed assignments transferring ownership of intellectual property to ISKCON of California, Inc. in July of 1976 as alleged in paragraph 41 of your complaint.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: BBTI objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of any information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. Plaintiff BBT objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrases "set forth in detail" and "the authority by which Mr. Murphy acted". Discovery and investigation are ongoing in this matter and BBTI reserves the right (but does not undertake) to supplement these responses as it discovers more information. [...]
As follows is a partial transcript of the court case involving Srila Prabhupada's books and copyrights. Due to missing pages and damage to pages of the document acquired, this transcript is not complete. However it is enough to reveal the inner workings of the famous case, which to this day is still the subject of much contention.
You may download a digital scan file of 5 pages of the original court transcript document, typed below, at
http://www.vedic.com.br/office/bbt_case.pdf
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CENTRAL DISTRICT
* * *
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State the date on which Robert Grant [Ramesvara dasa] was appointed as a "BBT Trustee" as alleged in paragraph 39 of your complaint.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Discovery and investigation are ongoing in this matter and BBTI reserves the right (but does not undertake) to supplement these responses as it discovers more information. Subject to the foregoing objections, both general and specific, and without waiving any of the them, plaintiff BBTI responds to this interrogatory as follows:
Robert Grant was officially confirmed as BBT Trustee by the GBC in the Spring of 1975 during the annual GBC meetings in Mayapura, West Bengal, India. Defendant Hans Kary attended the GBC meetings and approved the resolution appointing him. Upon information and belief, Ramesvara dasa was previously appointed by Srila Prabhupada as BBT trustee or "acting" BBT trustee some time during the twelve months before the 1975 GBC meetings.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: State precisely how ISKCON, Inc. acquired title to the various copyright registered in the name of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO 14: Plaintiff BBTI objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous, including specifically and without limitation with regards to the phrases "state precisely", "acquired title" (which is vague as to what kind of title) and "copyrights" (which is vague in that it does not specify whether it means only federal copyrights under the United States Copyright Act). BBTI objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of any information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. Subject to the foregoing objections, both general and specific, and without waiving any of them, plaintiff BBTI responds to this interrogatory as follows:
ISKCON, Inc. did business under the names "Bhaktivedanta Book Trust" and "BBT" from roughly 1971 until 1976. During the relevant time period (1966 through 1976) Srila Prabhupada's books, including all artwork, glossaries and elaborate purports, were "works for hire" created by ISKCON, Inc. ISKCON, Inc. owned common law copyrights in them from the time they were created, and become the owner of Federal copyrights as soon as they were published with a copyright notice.
BBTI contends that the California trust document dated May 29, 1972 never created a valid trust. However, if it did, and if any of the copyrights ever were owned by that trust, ISKCON, Inc. owned beneficial title to such property because ISKCON, Inc. was the trust beneficiary named in that document.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Identify the owner of the copyrights which were registered in the name of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust the day before ISKCON, Inc. first acquired title to those same copyrights.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: BBTI objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of any information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. BBTI further objects to this interrogatory as compound, vague and ambiguous and unintelligible. The interrogatory apparently asks BBTI to identify the person or entity who owned the copyrights, on the day before ISKCON, Inc. acquired title to them, which, at some time or another, were registered in the name of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Or alternatively, it asks BBTI to identify the person or entity who owned the copyrights, on the day before ISKCON, Inc. acquired title to them, which, at that same time, were registered in the name of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Or yet alternatively, it asks BBT to identify the person owner of those copyrights which, on the day before ISKCON, Inc. first acquired title to them, were registered in the name of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Another alternative meaning, which BBTI rejects as absurd, is that the interrogatory refers to works, the registrations for which were filed on the day before ISKCON Inc. became owner. BBTI also objects to the interrogatory on the ground that it appears to be based upon an erroneous assumption that someone other than ISKCON, Inc. owned certain copyright that [...]
[...missing page/part...]
* * *
INTERROGATORY NO. 18: State all FACTS on which you base the contention contained in paragraph 41 of your complaint that in July of 1976 Mr. Murphy formally executed assignments transferring ownership of the intellectual propertly to ISKCON of California, Inc.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: BBTI objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of any information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. Discovery and investigation are ongoing in this matter and BBTI reserves the right (but does not undertake) to supplement these responses as it discovers more information. Subject to the foregoing objections, both general and specific, and without waiving any of the them, plaintiff BBTI responds to this interrogatory as follows:
Mr. Murphy recalls formally executing the assignments. BBTI is not certain that this was done in July of 1976 and believes it may have been later that year. Investigation and discovery is ongoing, and BBTI reserves the right (but does not undertake) to supplement this answer later.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19: State all FACTS on which you base your contention contained in paragraph 41 of the complaint that ISKCON, Inc. either owned outright or owned beneficial title to various copyrights registered in the name of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: BBTI objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of any information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. Discovery and investigation are ongoing in this matter and BBTI reserves the right (but does not undertake) to supplement these responses as it discovers more information. Subject to the foregoing objections, both general and specific, and without waiving any of them, plaintiff BBTI responds to this interrogatory as follows:
BBTI believes that ISKCON, Inc. owned the copyrights outright because the works in question were "works for hire" created by ISKCON, Inc. ISKCON, Inc. supplied the employees who worked on the books with their materials and equipment. ISKCON, Inc. also supplied each of them with room and board and with a stipend for personal or family expenses. Such employees included those who worked in the art department, photography department, Sanskrt editors, Bengali editors, English editors, design and layout specialists, and proof readers, among others.
BBTI contents that the California Trust Agreement dated May 29, 1972 did not create a valid trust and that the book publishing and distribution operations of the Movement were in fact never operated according to provisions of that document. However, in the even the Court finds that that Trust Agreement created a legally valid trust which at the time in question (i.e, 1976) owned some or all of the copyrights registered at that time in the name Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, ISKCON, Inc, was the beneficiary of that trust, and therefore held beneficial title to those copyrights.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Set forth in detail the authority by which Mr. Murphy acted when he executed assignments transferring ownership of intellectual property to ISKCON of California, Inc. in July of 1976 as alleged in paragraph 41 of your complaint.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: BBTI objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of any information protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. Plaintiff BBT objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrases "set forth in detail" and "the authority by which Mr. Murphy acted". Discovery and investigation are ongoing in this matter and BBTI reserves the right (but does not undertake) to supplement these responses as it discovers more information. [...]
Replies