NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 24, 2008*

Decided August 28, 2008

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 07-3334

MICHAEL JOE CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AIRLEAF PUBLISHING AND BOOK SELLING

and BRIEN JONES,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Southern District of Indiana, 

Indianapolis Division.

No. 1-06-cv-1052-DFH-JMS

David F. Hamilton, Chief 

Judge.

Order

Michael Chapman published a 47-page book, “History of the World and Good or 

Evil Since the Garden of Edon” [sic], through Airleaf Publishing and Book Selling. This 

appears to be a trade name; it may be a division of either Bookman Marketing LLC or 

Airleaf LLC. It is hard to pin down Airleaf’s legal status because it is defunct. Before 

closing its doors at the end of 2007 Airleaf was accused by authors, as well as state and 

local officials in Indiana, of failing to print and distribute books that had been paid for 

(Airleaf was part of the “vanity press”) and of failing to remit royalties when books 

were sold. See http://airleafvictims.blogspot.com/2007/12/airleaf-publishing-selfpublishing.html.

Chapman, who has received $9 in royalties to date, accuses Airleaf of underpaying; 

Airleaf responded (before its attorneys, who like Chapman were not paid, withdrew 

from the litigation) that only two copies had been sold. Chapman maintains, however, 

that because at least 20 web sites (including Barnes & Noble, where its sales rank is 

728,827) list his book for sale, Airleaf must have sold hundreds of copies and might 

have sold tens of thousands. To this Airleaf replied that these booksellers do not stock 

 

*

 The appellees did not file a brief. After examining appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded 

that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 31(c), 34(a); Cir. R. 31(d), 34(f).
No. 07-3334 Page 2

Chapman’s volume but order only after a sale. Yet Amazon’s web site reported on July 

24, 2008, that it had two copies in stock, so this cannot be entirely right.

Although Airleaf is out of business, it does not appear to be a debtor in bankruptcy, so 

the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. §362, does not affect this litigation. And a second defendant, 

Brien Jones, still operates book-related businesses, see http://www.brienjones.com/, 

though the relation of Jones to Airleaf is not developed in Chapman’s complaint or appellate brief.

Contending that Airleaf has violated the copyright laws by failing to pay all royalties, Chapman invoked federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1337. The district 

court dismissed this claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because Chapman conceded 

that he had authorized Airleaf to print and distribute the book, and it then relinquished 

supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims such as breach of contract.

Chapman’s pro se brief in this court asserts only one theory: that Airleaf must have 

sold more than two copies, so it must owe him additional royalties. This is a claim for 

breach of contract, not for copyright infringement. Indeed, the complaint in the district 

court asserts no theory other than breach of contract. How much a publisher owes under a license depends on state rather than federal law. See Saturday Evening Post Co. v. 

Rumbleseat Press, Inc., 816 F.2d 1191, 1194–95 (7th Cir. 1987); T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 

F.2d 823, 824, 828 (2d Cir. 1964) (Friendly, J.). Chapman’s claim “will [not] be supported 

if the Constitution or laws of the United States are given one construction or effect, and 

defeated if they receive another”. Gulley v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936). 

Chapman apparently believes that, if an agreed royalty is not paid, then the license 

should be ignored and the claim treated as one for infringement, but this kind of artful 

pleading did not succeed in T.B. Harms and is unsound. It is just an attempt to disguise 

the real nature of a dispute about how much is owed in royalties. Because the complaint 

alleges that Chapman authorized Airleaf to print and sell the book, Chapman has admitted that the claim does not arise under federal law.

Nonpayment may allow an author to rescind a license and prevent future copying 

and sale of his work. That would create a genuine claim under federal law, if the exlicensee went on printing and selling the work. See Vincent v. City Colleges of Chicago, 485 

F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2007). But Chapman does not allege that he revoked the license, and 

Airleaf is not now making new copies of Chapman’s work—or anyone else’s.

A claim for money supposedly due as royalties belongs in state court. The judgment 

of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for 

lack of jurisdiction.