## Facts

- Emily Kimbrough Wrench wrote autobiographical stories about her experiences as a lecturer; two were first published in magazines in 1944 and 1945, with copyrights held by the respective magazines.
- Wrench and Universal Pictures entered a written contract (Apr. 22, 1948) under which Wrench sold Universal worldwide motion-picture rights to three stories and agreed to sell rights to future related stories and adaptations collectively titled *It Gives Me Great Pleasure*.
- Wrench promised to “protect and preserve” copyright interests “so far as might be legally possible,” including by ensuring proper copyright notice and registration, and by securing from any publisher an assignment to Universal of the rights Universal purchased.
- Universal paid Wrench $10,000 up front and agreed to additional payments tied to exploitation of the property.
- The stories were later collected in a 1948 book titled *It Gives Me Great Pleasure* with a copyright notice listing 1945 and 1948, but not 1944.
- Universal asserted the omission made the notice defective under the Copyright Act of 1909, allegedly placing the 1944 story into the public domain and excusing Universal’s further payment obligations; Universal sought rescission and return of the down payment.
- Wrench sued for money allegedly due under the contract; the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1948 book’s copyright notice, omitting the 1944 year, was legally defective under the 1909 Act so as to place a constituent story into the public domain.
2. If a defect existed, whether it constituted a breach of Wrench’s contractual duty to protect and preserve copyrights, entitling Universal to rescission or discharge of payment obligations.
3. Whether Universal (or any party) was entitled to summary judgment on the contract and rescission theories.

## Decision

- The court denied Universal’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court rejected Universal’s theory that the book’s notice omission automatically forfeited copyright protection for the previously published story.
- The court concluded Universal was not entitled, as a matter of law, to rescind the contract or avoid further obligations on the asserted public-domain ground.
- The case was allowed to proceed on Wrench’s claim for amounts due and on remaining disputes not resolved by Universal’s legal theory.

## Legal Principles

- A contractual promise to “protect and preserve” copyrights “so far as might be legally possible” is construed as requiring compliance consistent with applicable copyright-law requirements, not an absolute warranty against every technical argument of forfeiture.
- Under the 1909 Act, a later collected or composite work may carry its own copyright protection; omission of an earlier publication year for a component does not, by itself, necessarily place the component into the public domain when the component previously appeared with valid notice.
- Summary judgment is improper where the movant’s entitlement depends on a contested or unsupported legal premise about copyright forfeiture and its contractual consequences.

## Conclusion

The court refused to let Universal avoid its motion-picture rights contract through a technical copyright-notice forfeiture theory, holding that the composite book notice did not establish a public-domain loss of rights as a matter of law and that Universal was not entitled to rescission or summary judgment on that basis.


Wrench v. Universal Pictures Co., 104 F. Supp. 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)