## Facts

- The authors and composers of a German musical play (“Wie Einst im Mai”) granted Hans Bartsch worldwide “motion picture rights,” including exclusive rights to adapt the work into a motion picture and to “project, transmit and otherwise reproduce” it by cinematography “or any process analogous thereto,” and to license and exhibit the film worldwide.
- Bartsch assigned Warner Bros. worldwide motion picture rights for the full copyright term and renewals, with only limited reservations not central to the dispute.
- A film adaptation, “Maytime,” was produced under this chain of title, and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (MGM) later held the relevant motion picture rights.
- MGM authorized exhibition of the film on television in the United States.
- Irene Bartsch, successor to Hans Bartsch, claimed the 1930 grants did not include television and that telecasting exceeded MGM’s licensed rights, constituting copyright infringement.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding the assignments authorized television exhibition; Bartsch appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether broad 1930 assignments of worldwide “motion picture rights,” including language covering cinematography “or any process analogous thereto,” authorized the assignee to permit television broadcasting of the motion picture.
2. How broadly courts should construe technology-referencing grant language when a later-developed method of exhibition arises.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held that the assignments’ broad language encompassed television exhibition of the motion picture.
- MGM’s authorization of telecasts fell within the scope of its granted motion picture rights and did not infringe the plaintiff’s copyright.

## Legal Principles

- A broad copyright grant expressed in general terms may cover later-developed methods of exploiting the granted medium when the language is reasonably read to include the new method.
- “New use” questions turn principally on the breadth of the contractual language and whether the later method is an analogous means of exploiting the licensed work, not solely on whether the specific technology was contemplated at the time of contracting.
- When the grant is sufficiently expansive and contains no clear reservation, the risk of later technological developments within the granted field is allocated to the grantor, and the grantee may exploit the new method without obtaining an additional license.
- Conversely, narrower grants may leave later-developed uses outside the license, depending on the contract’s terms and context.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the 1930 worldwide motion picture rights assignments were broad enough to include television exhibition as an analogous method of showing the film, so MGM’s telecasting authorization was within its rights and did not constitute infringement.


Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 391 F.2d 150 (2d Cir. 1968)