## Facts

- Walt Disney Productions owned copyrights in Disney motion pictures and related animation artwork, including cels and production drawings created during the 1940s.
- John Basmajian, Sr. worked in Disney’s animation department from 1943 to 1946.
- Disney generated a very large volume of cels and sketches during that period and maintained internal practices for storing production materials and controlling removal from the studio.
- Disney also discarded or destroyed significant amounts of animation material; only a small subset was treated as important or retained, and some artwork was sold through authorized channels.
- Basmajian possessed a collection of Disney cels and drawings that he asserted he took from Disney while employed, claiming permission from personnel involved in disposal of materials that were otherwise being discarded.
- Basmajian consigned portions of the collection to Christie, Manson & Woods International, Inc. for an auction scheduled for December 8, 1984.
- Disney sued and sought a preliminary injunction to stop the auction, alleging the works were taken without permission and that the sale would violate Disney’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act and related theories.

## Issues

1. Whether Disney showed a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to justify a preliminary injunction, given factual disputes about permission, ownership, and the circumstances under which Basmajian acquired the physical artwork.
2. Whether Disney demonstrated irreparable harm absent an injunction, and whether the balance of hardships favored stopping the scheduled auction.

## Decision

- The court denied Disney’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court found Disney did not make the required strong showing of likely success on the merits because evidence suggested Disney permitted removal of artwork destined for destruction and the facts surrounding acquisition were contested.
- The court concluded Disney did not establish irreparable harm warranting extraordinary relief, particularly in light of Disney’s historical treatment of comparable artwork and the long passage of time.
- The court determined the balance of hardships did not support enjoining the auction where the requested relief would significantly harm Basmajian and Christie’s and the dispute could be resolved after fuller development of the record.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing of (1) likely success on the merits and (2) irreparable harm, with consideration of the balance of hardships and the public interest.
- Where substantial factual disputes exist about consent or permission to possess physical copies of copyrighted works, a court may find the movant has not shown likely success sufficient for preliminary relief.
- A plaintiff’s prior conduct and delay, including tolerance of practices affecting possession or distribution of physical copies, can weigh against a finding of irreparable harm and immediate entitlement to equitable relief.
- In copyright disputes, alleged infringement alone may not justify preliminary relief when the record indicates the asserted harm is not urgent or is undermined by the plaintiff’s historical practices.

## Conclusion

The court refused to halt Christie’s auction because Disney did not satisfy the demanding preliminary-injunction standard: the record raised substantial questions about whether Basmajian had permission to keep materials Disney was discarding, and Disney did not show irreparable harm or equitable grounds strong enough to justify stopping the sale before trial.


Walt Disney Prods. v. Basmajian, 600 F. Supp. 439 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)