Pablo Star Ltd. v. Welsh Gov't, 19-1262-cv

Plaintiffs (Pablo Star Ltd.) claim ownership of U.S.-registered copyrights in two Dylan Thomas photographs and allege the Welsh Government used them without permission in promotional materials.
The Welsh Government (a devolved U.K. government body with statutory authority to promote Welsh culture, economic development, and tourism) used the photos on wales.com, in a “Welsh in America” booklet and exhibition, and in a brochure for a Dylan Thomas walking tour in New York.
New York Fun Tours ran the walking tour (charging admission); some materials were produced or distributed in the U.S. and media outlets in U.S. cities ran stories using the photos.
Pablo Star registered the copyrights in 2012 and demanded that the Welsh Government cease use; the complaint alleges continued use and distribution to U.S. media.
The district court denied the Welsh Government’s FSIA sovereign-immunity motion under the commercial-activity exception; the Welsh Government appealed, arguing the activities were governmental and lacked the required substantial U.S. contact.
The Second Circuit affirmed, holding the activity was commercial in nature and had substantial contact with the United States.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Welsh Government’s use of the photos to promote tourism is "commercial activity" under the FSIA	The use was advertising-like (webpages, brochure, exhibition) — conduct a private actor could perform; therefore commercial	Promotion of national culture and tourism is a sovereign function performed pursuant to statutory mandate, not commercial	The court held the conduct was commercial in nature (focus on nature/outward form, not governmental purpose)
Whether the commercial activity had "substantial contact" with the United States under 28 U.S.C. §1603(e)	The campaign targeted the U.S.: materials were developed/distributed for use in New York, the walking tour operated in NYC, materials were provided to U.S. media, and some printing/contracts occurred in New York	Relevant acts occurred in the U.K.; servers and strategy were based in Wales/UK and U.S. offices were located in consular premises, invoking consular protections	The court held there was substantial contact: the campaign’s U.S.-directed distribution, exhibition, and cooperation with NY entities connected the activities to the U.S.

Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, 504 U.S. 607 (1992) ("commercial" determined by nature of acts, not governmental purpose)
Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993) (sovereign acts—police/punitive powers—are noncommercial; nexus between commercial acts and claim matters)
Kato v. Ishihara, 360 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2004) (distinguishing governmental promotion of others’ commerce and personnel/employment matters)
Shapiro v. Republic of Bolivia, 930 F.2d 1013 (2d Cir. 1991) ("substantial contact" standard for FSIA is tighter than minimum-contacts)
Anglo-Iberia Underwriting Mgmt. v. P.T. Jamsostek, 600 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2010) (FSIA provides sole basis for jurisdiction over foreign states)
Leutwyler v. Office of Her Majesty Queen Rania Al-Abdullah, 184 F. Supp. 2d 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (publishing/selling activity is commercial despite governmental purpose)