## Facts

- Igor Stravinsky’s *The Rite of Spring* was in the U.S. public domain in 1939, but remained protected by copyright in various foreign territories.
- In 1939, Stravinsky and Disney executed a written agreement licensing Disney, for a lump-sum payment, to record the composition for use in the motion picture *Fantasia*.
- The grant language broadly permitted Disney to record the work “in any manner, medium or form” and to exhibit/perform the film “by any method now or hereafter known,” while limiting the grant to “one motion picture” and reserving ungranted rights to the composer.
- *Fantasia* was released theatrically and later distributed through later-developed technologies, including television and home-video formats (e.g., videocassette and laser disc), including foreign distribution.
- Boosey & Hawkes later acquired Stravinsky’s relevant copyright interests and sued Disney in 1993, alleging that foreign home-video distribution exceeded the 1939 license and infringed foreign copyrights.
- The district court (S.D.N.Y.) granted partial summary judgment to Boosey on license scope (finding no authorization for video-format distribution), granted partial summary judgment to Disney dismissing Boosey’s breach-of-contract and Lanham Act claims, and dismissed the foreign copyright claims on forum non conveniens grounds.
- Both sides appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1939 license’s broad “any manner” and “now or hereafter known” language authorized later-developed home-video distribution of *Fantasia*.
2. Whether U.S. law governed interpretation of the 1939 license relating to foreign exploitation, and whether a U.S. court could adjudicate infringement claims under foreign copyright law.
3. Whether Boosey stated a viable Lanham Act § 43(a) claim independent of its copyright theory.
4. Whether summary judgment dismissing the breach-of-contract claim was proper.
5. Whether dismissal of foreign copyright claims on forum non conveniens grounds was an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- Reversed the summary judgment declaring that the 1939 license did not authorize video-format distribution; the agreement was not unambiguous, and disputed facts and extrinsic evidence could bear on scope.
- Held that U.S. law governed interpretation of the license; U.S. courts may adjudicate foreign copyright claims against a U.S. defendant when jurisdiction is proper, applying foreign law as needed.
- Affirmed summary judgment for Disney on the Lanham Act § 43(a) claim because Boosey failed to identify a false designation or misrepresentation independent of the asserted copyright violation.
- Reversed summary judgment dismissing the breach-of-contract claim because material factual disputes remained.
- Reversed the forum non conveniens dismissal of the foreign copyright claims and remanded; the convenience and public-interest factors did not justify dismissal merely because foreign law would be applied.

## Legal Principles

- Broad copyright-license grants are generally construed to include later-developed methods of exploitation when consistent with the license’s language; the licensor bears the burden to show the new use was excluded.
- A reservation-of-rights clause does not automatically carve out later-developed uses if the disputed use fits within the general class of rights granted.
- Interpretation of a copyright license may be governed by U.S. law even when the challenged exploitation occurs abroad; a federal court may adjudicate claims under foreign copyright law when subject matter and personal jurisdiction exist.
- Lanham Act § 43(a) does not provide a substitute remedy for alleged copyright infringement absent a distinct false designation of origin or false description of fact.
- Forum non conveniens dismissal is improper when the defendant is a U.S. entity, key evidence and witnesses are located in the U.S., and the need to apply foreign law is manageable in federal court.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the 1939 music license’s broad language could extend to later home-video distribution and that the dispute required factual development, while also reinstating related contract and foreign copyright claims and rejecting a Lanham Act theory that merely duplicated the copyright dispute.


Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers, Ltd. v. Walt Disney Co., 145 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 1998)