T. B. Harms Company v. Eliscu

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964 · Civil Procedure

339 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1964)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureFederal JurisdictionCopyright Jurisdiction28 U.S.C. § 1338arising undercopyrightownership disputeassignment

Facts

The dispute concerned ownership of renewal copyrights in four songs from the motion picture "Flying Down to Rio." Harms claimed succession to rights acquired from Youmans and alleged that Eliscu had assigned his lyric rights, including renewal rights, to Dreyfus in 1933; Eliscu disputed that assignment. When the original copyrights neared expiration, Eliscu recorded an assignment of his claimed renewal rights to Jungnickel, notified royalty agents that he owned a half interest, demanded an accounting from Harms, and brought a New York state action seeking a declaration of ownership and an accounting. Harms then sued in federal court under § 1338, even though defendants had not used or threatened to use the songs.

Issue

Does a federal court have exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338 over an action seeking declaratory and equitable relief to determine ownership of copyright renewal rights and the validity of alleged assignments, where the complaint alleges no infringement and does not require construction of the Copyright Act?

Rule

An action arises under the Copyright Act for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1338 if and only if the complaint seeks a remedy expressly granted by the Act, asserts a claim requiring construction of the Act, or at least perhaps presents a case in which a distinctive policy of the Act requires federal principles to control. A dispute merely over ownership, title, or enforcement of assignments or contracts relating to copyrights, turning on facts or ordinary contract principles, does not arise under the Act.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Nashville, Lena Ortiz claims she alone owns a registered song catalog. Her former collaborator, Devin Marsh, files a document with the Copyright Office asserting a 50% ownership interest and sends letters to Lena's royalty collection agent warning that payments made without recognizing his share are at the agent's risk, but Devin has not copied, performed, licensed, or distributed any songs.

If Lena sues Devin in federal district court invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1338 and seeks a declaration that Devin has no ownership interest plus an injunction against his ownership claims, is federal jurisdiction proper?

Explanation. An action arises under the Copyright Act only if the complaint seeks a remedy expressly granted by the Act, requires construction of the Act, or perhaps implicates a distinctive federal copyright policy requiring federal principles. A mere ownership dispute based on title, assignment, and notice to royalty agents does not qualify. Recording a claim and warning payors are acts aimed at asserting ownership, not infringement.