Connection lost
Server error
Irene Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 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: A 1930 grant of “motion picture rights” was challenged when the resulting film was licensed for television. The court held the broad grant included television exhibition, placing the burden on the copyright owner (grantor) to explicitly reserve rights for new technologies.
Legal Significance: This case established a key interpretive rule for copyright licenses: a broad grant of rights includes new uses and technologies that fall reasonably within the medium described, unless the grantor explicitly reserves those rights. This is often referred to as the “Bartsch rule.”
Irene Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 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
In 1930, the authors of the musical play “Wie Einst in Mai” assigned the “motion picture rights” to Hans Bartsch. The grant included the right “to project, transmit and otherwise reproduce the said work… visually or audibly by the art of cinematography or any process analogous thereto, and to copyright, vend, license and exhibit such motion picture photoplays throughout the world.” Bartsch assigned these rights to Warner Bros. Pictures using nearly identical language. The rights were subsequently transferred to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (MGM), which produced the film “Maytime” in 1935. In 1958, MGM began licensing the film for television broadcast. Bartsch’s widow and successor-in-interest, Irene Bartsch (Plaintiff), sued MGM for copyright infringement. She argued that the 1930 grant of motion picture rights did not include the right to exhibit the film on television, a medium that was not commercially viable at the time of the agreement, and that such rights were therefore reserved to the original authors and their successors.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a broad 1930 grant of motion picture rights, which includes the right to “exhibit” the resulting photoplay, encompass the right to license that photoplay for television broadcast, a technology whose potential was known but not commercially developed at the time of the grant?
Yes. The court held that the broad grant to “vend, license and 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
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
Does a broad 1930 grant of motion picture rights, which includes the right to “exhibit” the resulting photoplay, encompass the right to license that photoplay for television broadcast, a technology whose potential was known but not commercially developed at the time of the grant?
Conclusion
This case established a foundational, licensee-friendly principle for interpreting copyright grants in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna ali
Legal Rule
Under New York law, when a copyright license uses broad language to 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
Legal Analysis
The court, applying New York contract law, first rejected the lower court's 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 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 do
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A broad grant of media rights (e.g., to “exhibit” a motion