judgment stage where the same evidence could be submitted in admissible form at a trial).
In addition, we reject the argument that Chilton was not competent to testify on the matters stated in the affidavit. Chilton’s affidavit simply explained how to navigate the array of documents showing that the asserted copyrights were valid and that Warner Bros. had obtained ownership of them. “A lay witness may give an opinion only if it is rationally based on the perception of the witness and would help the factfinder determine a matter in issue.” Hurst v. United States, 882 F.2d 306, 312 (8th Cir. 1989). Here, Chilton’s opinion about how the multiple documents combined to establish chain of title could be viewed as helpful to the factfinder. Furthermore, “[p]ersonal knowledge or perception acquired through review of records prepared in the ordinary course of business . . . is a sufficient foundation for lay opinion testimony.” Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Nebraska, 802 F.2d 994, 1004-05 (8th Cir. 1986). Therefore, Chilton’s review of the documents was sufficient to render her competent to testify to the matters in the affidavit.
As a result, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the affidavit. AVELA makes no argument that the documents and affidavit, if admissible, are insufficient to establish chain of title. Therefore, we proceed to determine whether AVELA’s use of images from the publicity materials infringes the film copyrights.
B. The Public Domain Nature of the Publicity Materials
Because our analysis differs from that of the district court, we find it necessary to determine whether the publicity materials reached the public domain.
Whether a work entered the public domain prior to January 1, 1978, the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., must be determined according to copyright law as it existed before that date, under the 1909
-7-
