Rosenberg v. Zimet
New York Supreme Court
913 N.Y.S.2d 547 (2010)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Marta Rosenberg (plaintiff) was an author of several books about Oskar Schindler, whose list of Jewish employees, as recounted in the book and movie Schindler’s List, saved hundreds from the Nazi death camps. After Schindler died, his wife, Emilie, became good friends with Rosenberg and assigned to her the contents of Schindler’s suitcase, which included the list of employees Schindler presented to the SS that was at the Holocaust Museum in Israel. Emilie’s will named Rosenberg as Emilie’s sole heir. Schindler’s accountant gave another version of the list to his nephew Nathan Stern. Gary Zimet was a principal of M.I.T. Memorabilia (M.I.T.) (collectively, Zimet) (defendants), a dealer in historical items. Stern retained Zimet to find a buyer for the list. Rosenberg learned that Zimet was trying to sell the list and advised him that she was Emilie’s sole heir and owned the list. Zimet offered to sell Rosenberg the list. Rosenberg filed an action to prevent the list from being sold in violation of her copyright. The court issued a temporary restraining order barring the sale of the list and the publication of its contents. Rosenberg moved for a preliminary injunction for the same relief. Zimet argued that he intended only to sell the list and selling the list without publishing its contents would not violate Rosenberg’s copyright, but even publication would not violate any right belonging to Rosenberg because the contents of the list were already known worldwide.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (York, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.