Connection lost
Server error
Clare Milne, by and Through Michael Joseph Coyne, Her Receiver v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The court affirmed that a 1983 agreement revoking and re-granting Winnie-the-Pooh copyrights was valid, preventing termination under the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), which only applies to pre-1978 grants.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that a post-1978 contractual revocation and re-grant of copyright, even if motivated by termination rights, creates a new grant not subject to CTEA termination provisions applicable to pre-1978 grants.
Clare Milne, by and Through Michael Joseph Coyne, Her Receiver v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
A.A. Milne, author of the Winnie-the-Pooh works, granted rights to Stephen Slesinger in 1930. Following the 1976 Copyright Act, which introduced termination rights for authors and heirs for pre-1978 grants, Milne’s heirs, including his son Christopher, negotiated a new agreement in 1983 with Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) and Disney. This 1983 agreement explicitly revoked the 1930 grant and re-granted the rights to SSI on more favorable terms for the Milne heirs, leveraging Christopher’s potential termination right under the 1976 Act. In 2002, Clare Milne, A.A. Milne’s granddaughter, sought to terminate the original 1930 grant under the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (CTEA), which extended termination rights for pre-1978 grants. SSI argued the 1930 grant was no longer extant due to the 1983 revocation and re-grant, making the CTEA inapplicable. The district court agreed, finding the 1983 agreement created a new, post-1978 grant not subject to CTEA termination.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the 1983 agreement, which revoked a pre-1978 copyright grant and simultaneously re-granted the rights, create a new, post-1978 grant that is not subject to termination under the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act’s provisions for pre-1978 grants?
Affirmed. The 1983 agreement validly revoked the 1930 grant and created a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo conse
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the 1983 agreement, which revoked a pre-1978 copyright grant and simultaneously re-granted the rights, create a new, post-1978 grant that is not subject to termination under the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act’s provisions for pre-1978 grants?
Conclusion
The case establishes that parties can validly enter into new copyright agreements Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi
Legal Rule
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) permits termination of copyright Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit es
Legal Analysis
The court reasoned that the CTEA's termination provision, 17 U.S.C. § 304(d), Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui offici
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The CTEA’s copyright termination right (17 U.S.C. § 304(d)) applies only