## Facts

- Eden Ahbez claimed authorship and U.S. copyright ownership of the musical composition “Nature Boy.”
- In October 1947, Ahbez entered a songwriter agreement assigning rights in “Nature Boy” for the United States and the British Empire to Burke & Van Heusen, Inc.
- Burke & Van Heusen later assigned its rights to Crestview Music Corp., which published “Nature Boy” in the United States on April 9, 1948.
- Ahbez alleged that, beginning in May 1948, defendants conspired to deprive him of revenues by licensing, publishing, recording, and commercially exploiting “Nature Boy” throughout Europe without his authorization.
- The complaint described a May 31, 1948 letter agreement under which Crestview purportedly granted Edwin H. Morris & Co., Ltd. rights in the British Empire and Europe.
- Ahbez alleged a 1948 meeting in Los Angeles with a defendant representative to negotiate European rights; a draft agreement was prepared, but no final agreement was executed.
- The pleaded infringement consisted of ongoing exploitation and licensing activity occurring in Europe.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the Copyright Act over a claim alleging infringement consisting solely of acts occurring outside the United States.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held that the Copyright Act does not apply to infringing acts occurring entirely abroad.
- Because the complaint alleged only European exploitation as the infringing conduct, it did not state a claim arising under U.S. copyright law within the court’s territorial jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- U.S. copyright law lacks extraterritorial application; alleged infringement wholly outside the United States is not actionable under the Copyright Act in federal court.
- Federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338 requires a cognizable claim arising under U.S. copyright law, which generally requires domestic acts of infringement.
- Domestic negotiations or contract-related conduct, without pleaded domestic infringing reproduction, distribution, performance, or other actionable U.S.-based infringement, do not supply jurisdiction for claims directed at foreign exploitation.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the action because the complaint alleged infringement only through licensing and exploitation in Europe, and U.S. copyright law did not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction over purely foreign infringing conduct.


Ahbez v. Edwin H. Morris & Co., 548 F. Supp. 664 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)