# Random House v. Rosetta Books: Why a Grant of Rights 'In Book Form' Did Not Include Ebooks

> The SDNY held that a grant to print, publish, and sell a work 'in book form' did not convey ebook rights, the template for every new-use licensing fight.

Topic: Copyright  |  Author: Lidiia Levitska  |  Source: Intellectual Property Law (outsideipcounsel.com)
Canonical: https://outsideipcounsel.com/blog/random-house-v-rosetta-books-ebook-new-use-rights/


*Random House, Inc. v. Rosetta Books LLC*, 150 F. Supp. 2d 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), aff'd, 283 F.3d 490 (2d Cir. 2002), is the decision that told the publishing industry its old contracts did not automatically reach the digital age. When a startup ebook publisher licensed backlist classics by William Styron, Kurt Vonnegut, and Robert B. Parker directly from the authors, Random House sued, insisting that its decades-old grants of the right to "print, publish and sell the work in book form" already covered electronic editions. Judge Sidney H. Stein disagreed. Applying New York contract law and the Second Circuit's new-use precedents, he held that "in book form" is a limited grant that does not include ebooks, and denied Random House a preliminary injunction.

The ruling is the leading modern template for a question that recurs every time technology outruns a signed agreement: does an old grant of rights cover a use nobody contemplated at signing? From videocassette disputes to streaming, audio, and the licensing debates surrounding artificial intelligence, negotiators still reason from this framework.

## At a glance

- **Case:** *Random House, Inc. v. Rosetta Books LLC*, 150 F. Supp. 2d 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), aff'd, 283 F.3d 490 (2d Cir. 2002)
- **Decided:** July 11, 2001 (Judge Sidney H. Stein, S.D.N.Y., denying a preliminary injunction); affirmed per curiam March 8, 2002
- **Holding:** A grant of the exclusive right to "print, publish and sell the work in book form" does not convey the right to publish the work as an ebook, so the authors remained free to license digital editions to another publisher.
- **Status:** Final. The Second Circuit affirmed on abuse-of-discretion review without resolving the merits, and the parties settled in November 2002, with Rosetta remaining the sole ebook publisher of the disputed titles.

## Backlist classics meet a digital upstart

Rosetta Books, founded by literary agent Arthur M. Klebanoff, launched its ebook business on February 26, 2001. Among its first titles were eight novels licensed directly from their authors: William Styron's *The Confessions of Nat Turner* and *Sophie's Choice*, Kurt Vonnegut's *Slaughterhouse-Five*, *Breakfast of Champions*, *The Sirens of Titan*, *Cat's Cradle*, and *Player Piano*, and Robert B. Parker's *Promised Land*. Random House, which held print publishing rights to all eight under contracts signed between 1961 and 1982, sued the very next day for copyright infringement and tortious interference, moving immediately for a preliminary injunction under 17 U.S.C. § 502(a). Major publishers and the Authors Guild appeared as amici; the industry understood that the backlist's entire digital future was on the table.

The threshold legal frame came from 17 U.S.C. § 501(b): only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right may sue for its infringement. Random House was not the authors; it was an exclusive licensee. Since everyone conceded that Rosetta's ebooks reproduced the texts exactly, the case reduced to a single question of contract interpretation: had the authors granted Random House the right to publish these works as ebooks?

Each contract conveyed to the publisher the right to "print, publish and sell the work in book form." The surrounding grants were telling. Styron's 1961 contract separately licensed book club editions, reprint editions, abridgments, and Braille editions, and Styron had crossed out the clauses granting British Commonwealth and foreign-language rights. Vonnegut's 1967 and 1970 contracts with Dell (Random House's predecessor in interest) reserved to the author dramatic, motion picture, radio, and television rights, including "mechanical renditions and/or recordings of the text." Parker's 1982 contract did the same, while granting the publisher "Xerox and other forms of copying of the printed page, either now in use or hereafter developed."

## The new-use framework: Bartsch, Boosey, and neutral construction

Because a copyright license is construed under state contract law, Judge Stein turned to New York principles and to the Second Circuit's two leading "new use" decisions. In *Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.*, 391 F.2d 150 (2d Cir. 1968), Judge Henry Friendly held that a broad 1930 grant of worldwide "motion picture rights" to the play *Maytime* was capacious enough to cover television exhibition, a use unknown at signing; the licensee could "properly pursue any uses which may reasonably be said to fall within the medium as described in the license." Three decades later, in *Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers, Ltd. v. Walt Disney Co.*, 145 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 1998), Judge Pierre Leval held that Stravinsky's 1939 license permitting Disney to record *The Rite of Spring* "in any manner, medium or form" for use in *Fantasia* reached home video release.

*Boosey* announced the governing method: neutral principles of contract interpretation, with no thumb on the scale for either licensor or licensee. What governs is the language of the contract, and the party seeking an exception or deviation from the meaning the words reasonably convey "should bear the burden of negotiating for language that would express the limitation or deviation." The doctrine balances two policies: encouraging licensees to develop new technologies, and preserving copyright's core incentive for authors to create.

## Reading "in book form" as a limited grant

Applying that method, the court found the most reasonable reading of "print, publish and sell the work in book form" excludes ebooks. The phrase itself distinguishes the pure content ("the work") from the format of display ("in book form"). If "in book form" swept in every conceivable kind of book, the contracts' separate grants for book club editions, reprints, abridgments, and Braille editions would be surplusage, an interpretation New York law instructs courts to avoid. The authors' habit of striking unwanted clauses from the publisher's form contract showed they were not conveying the broadest possible rights.

Trade usage pointed the same way. Citing *Field v. True Comics*, 89 F. Supp. 611 (S.D.N.Y. 1950), and the Lindey treatise on publishing agreements, the court noted that the industry generally understands "in book form" as a limited grant, traditionally the exclusive right to publish a hardcover trade book in English for distribution in North America. Random House's counterarguments fared no better. The clause letting it publish "in such style and manner and at such a price as it deems suitable" governed the appearance of formats already granted, not the grant's scope. The non-compete clauses could not manufacture a grant of rights, and any breach by the authors would sound in contract against them, not in copyright against Rosetta. The photocopying clause, read in context, spoke to advances in xerography, not new modes of publishing.

The court then distinguished *Bartsch* and *Boosey* on four grounds. The grant language here was far narrower. The new use in the film cases fell within the same medium as the original grant, whereas an ebook, digital signals interacting with software and hardware, is a different medium from printed words on paper (citing *Greenberg v. National Geographic Society*, 244 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2001)). The film licensees had created new works of their own, making the disputed exhibition right derivative of a creative contribution book publishers do not make. And the policy concern about "antiprogressive incentives" cut both ways: in the internet era, startups are at least as likely as incumbent publishers to advance digital technology. Judge Stein closed by insisting the result was "neither a victory for technophiles nor a defeat for Luddites," just neutral contract construction.

## Affirmance, settlement, and the aftermath

The Second Circuit affirmed per curiam on March 8, 2002, reviewing only for abuse of discretion. The panel saw some pull in Random House's argument that an ebook is simply a "form" of book, but noted that New York law arguably takes a restrictive view of new uses not expressly covered, and that resolving the grant's scope would require fact-finding about evolving technology and trade understanding. With the merits uncertain and the balance of hardships favoring a startup the injunction would have shut down, denial was proper. The case never reached trial: in November 2002 the parties settled, with Rosetta remaining the sole ebook publisher of the eight disputed titles and Random House separately licensing several dozen other titles to Rosetta as ebooks, sharing in the royalties on those.

The practical lesson was absorbed almost immediately: publishers began expressly enumerating electronic and digital rights, and "all media now known or hereafter devised" language became standard precisely because *Rosetta Books* showed what happens without it.

## Open questions

The Second Circuit never decided whether "in book form" covers ebooks; it held only that the district court acted within its discretion at the preliminary stage, and it hinted the merits were closer than Judge Stein's opinion suggested. The decision also left unresolved where the medium line sits: *Boosey* treats new distribution methods within a medium as covered by broad grants, while *Rosetta Books* treats the shift from analog to digital as a change of medium, and later technologies (audiobook streaming, app-based editions, AI-assisted formats) do not always sort cleanly into one box or the other. Finally, because the ruling turns on New York contract law and the specific contracts at issue, differently worded grants may be read far more expansively. In *Dolch v. Garrard Publishing Co.*, 289 F. Supp. 687 (S.D.N.Y. 1968), a grant of "the exclusive right of publication of the books" was held to reach paperback editions, though that court was applying Illinois law and the grant drew no line between the "book" and the "work."

## Implications for creators and businesses

- **Enumerate the formats, or lose them.** A format-specific grant conveys only what it names. Licensees who want future technologies must negotiate express language ("in any format now known or hereafter developed"); licensors who want to keep them should reserve them explicitly.
- **The drafting burden falls on the party wanting more.** Under *Boosey*'s neutral rule, courts will not stretch a grant beyond its reasonable meaning. Whoever needs the broader reading should have bargained for it, and that allocation applies to authors and publishers alike.
- **Reserved-rights behavior is evidence.** The authors' crossed-out clauses helped defeat Random House. How parties mark up a form contract, and what rights they separately license, shapes how a court reads the granting clause years later.
- **Legacy contracts are an asset map worth auditing.** Rights never granted remain with the author (or the estate) and can be licensed to a competitor. Any business built on old licenses should audit what its paper actually conveys before a new technology makes the gap valuable.

## Frequently asked questions

**Why did the court hold that "in book form" did not include ebooks?** Judge Stein read the grant language as separating the content ("the work") from the format of display ("in book form"). Because each contract separately granted rights to book club editions, reprint editions, abridgments, and Braille editions, reading "in book form" to cover every kind of book would render those clauses superfluous. Publishing industry usage confirmed that the phrase is a limited grant, traditionally understood as the right to publish a hardcover trade book.

**What is the new-use doctrine in copyright licensing?** New-use doctrine governs whether a license grant covers technologies that did not exist when the contract was signed. Under the Second Circuit's approach in *Bartsch v. MGM* and *Boosey & Hawkes v. Walt Disney*, courts apply neutral contract interpretation: the contract's language controls, and the party seeking rights beyond the meaning the words reasonably convey bears the burden of having negotiated for them. Broad media grants can capture new distribution methods within the same medium, but narrow format-specific grants do not.

**How did the Rosetta Books case ultimately end?** The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction in a per curiam opinion on March 8, 2002, holding that the district court had not abused its discretion, without finally resolving the contract question. The case never went to trial. In November 2002 the parties settled, with Rosetta Books remaining the sole ebook publisher of the eight disputed titles and Random House separately licensing several dozen other titles to Rosetta as ebooks, sharing in the royalties on those.

## Authorities and sources

- [*Random House, Inc. v. Rosetta Books LLC*, 150 F. Supp. 2d 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (opinion text, Copyright Alliance PDF)](https://copyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Random-House-v.-Rosetta-Books.pdf)
- [*Random House, Inc. v. Rosetta Books LLC*, 283 F.3d 490 (2d Cir. 2002) (FindLaw opinion text)](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-2nd-circuit/1250092.html)
- [17 U.S.C. § 501 (Cornell LII), infringement and standing of exclusive licensees](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/501)
- [Publishers Weekly, "Rosetta, Random House Settle E-book Lawsuit" (Nov. 2002)](https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20021111/22822-rosetta-random-house-settle-e-book-lawsuit.html)
- *Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers, Ltd. v. Walt Disney Co.*, 145 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 1998), and *Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.*, 391 F.2d 150 (2d Cir. 1968), the Second Circuit new-use framework applied by the district court