## Facts

- A music publisher claimed sole ownership of renewal copyrights in four songs written for the 1933 film *Flying Down to Rio*.
- The songs’ music was composed under a studio contract anticipating lyricist hiring, royalty arrangements, and allocation of certain rights among participants.
- A lyricist asserted a one-third interest in the renewal copyrights and denied executing an alleged 1933 assignment transferring his existing and renewal rights to the publisher’s predecessor.
- When the original copyright terms ended, renewal applications were filed by the heirs of the composer and another lyricist, and by the lyricist-claimant.
- The composer’s heirs and the other lyricist’s heirs assigned their renewal interests to the publisher; the lyricist-claimant instead executed a recorded instrument assigning his purported renewal rights to another publisher, expressly conditioned on a judicial determination of ownership.
- The publisher alleged the lyricist-claimant and the assignee clouded title by recording their claims and warning the publisher’s licensees about their asserted interests.

## Issues

1. Whether a dispute over ownership and assignment of copyright renewal rights, without an infringement claim or a request for a remedy provided by the Copyright Act, “arises under” federal copyright law for exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).
2. Whether the need to resolve contested contract/title questions about a purported assignment is sufficient to create federal jurisdiction merely because copyrights are the subject matter.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).
- The action did not seek a remedy expressly granted by the Copyright Act, such as infringement remedies.
- The controversy did not require construction of the Copyright Act; the Act’s role was background (renewals and assignability), while the decisive questions were contractual and factual.
- No distinctive federal copyright policy required federal principles to control resolution of the ownership/assignment dispute.
- The ownership and assignment questions were matters of state contract and property law.

## Legal Principles

- A case “arises under” the Copyright Act for § 1338(a) purposes when the complaint:
  - seeks a remedy expressly granted by the Act; or
  - requires construction of the Act; or
  - presents a situation where a distinctive policy of the Act requires application of federal principles.
- Disputes centered on copyright title, ownership, or contractual assignments generally do not arise under the Copyright Act absent an infringement claim, a statutory remedy request, or a substantial statutory-interpretation issue.
- Recording a claim of copyright ownership and asserting interests against licensees, without alleging infringement, does not itself convert a state-law ownership dispute into a federal copyright action.

## Conclusion

Because the case turned on whether a lyricist had transferred renewal rights by contract and did not seek Copyright Act remedies or require meaningful statutory construction, federal jurisdiction under § 1338(a) was absent and dismissal was proper.


T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1964)