## Facts

- Margaret M. Landon authored *Anna and the King of Siam* and entered a 1944 written agreement conveying extensive motion picture rights to Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. (Fox).
- The agreement granted Fox sole and exclusive motion picture rights, the exclusive motion picture copyright, and the right to make and exhibit motion picture photoplays based on the book.
- The contract expressly authorized Fox to make new versions, adaptations, and sequels, and to broadcast by television any such motion picture photoplays.
- In 1972, Fox produced thirteen half-hour films broadcast by Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (CBS) as a weekly television series, *Anna and the King*.
- Landon claimed the programs were independently produced television shows outside the contract’s scope and asserted claims for copyright infringement, Sherman Act § 1 tying, lack of consideration for renewal rights, and torts (defamation, invasion of privacy, misappropriation, and wrongful attribution).
- Landon moved for partial summary judgment on infringement; defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims and sought leave to add a statute-of-limitations defense to the antitrust count.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1944 agreement’s grant of “motion picture” rights and television broadcast rights authorized production and broadcast of the 1972 half-hour television film series.
2. Whether Fox’s acquisition of original and renewal copyright interests constituted an unlawful tying arrangement under Sherman Act § 1, and whether the claim was time-barred.
3. Whether the renewal-rights assignment in the 1944 agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration.
4. Whether the 1972 series supported tort liability for defamation, invasion of privacy, misappropriation of literary property, or wrongful attribution.

## Decision

- Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted on all claims; Landon’s motion for partial summary judgment was denied.
- The court held the 1944 agreement broadly authorized Fox to produce the challenged television series and to televise it; no infringement occurred.
- The court allowed defendants to amend their answer to plead the statute of limitations and held the antitrust claim both meritless and time-barred.
- The court held the renewal-rights assignment was supported by adequate consideration and enforceable.
- The court dismissed the tort claims for failure to satisfy required elements and because the complained-of conduct fell within Fox’s contractual rights.

## Legal Principles

- A grant of motion picture rights is construed by its contractual language; absent an express or implied restriction, “motion picture” rights may include films made for initial television exhibition.
- Where a contract explicitly reserves particular rights to the author, unreserved audiovisual exploitation consistent with the grant is generally permitted.
- A Sherman Act tying claim requires proof of market power or economic coercion and anticompetitive effect in a properly defined market; bundling related copyright terms in a single license is not, without more, an illegal tie.
- Federal antitrust damages claims are subject to a four-year limitations period; claims accruing at contract formation may be time-barred decades later.
- An assignment of copyright renewal rights is enforceable when supported by consideration as part of an integrated bargain.
- Defamation and privacy claims require actionable statements “of and concerning” the plaintiff (and other required elements); accurate credit that a work is “based on” an author’s book does not, without additional falsehood, establish wrongful attribution.

## Conclusion

The court interpreted the 1944 rights grant to authorize Fox’s production of a television film series derived from Landon’s book and its broadcast by CBS, defeating infringement. It also rejected Landon’s antitrust tying theory (and found it untimely), enforced the renewal-rights assignment as supported by consideration, and dismissed related tort claims as legally insufficient and inconsistent with defendants’ contractually authorized uses.


Landon v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 384 F. Supp. 450 (S.D.N.Y. 1974)