International News Service v. Associated Press
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| INS v. Associated Press | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued May 2–3, 1918 Decided December 23, 1918 |
||||||
| Full case name | International News Service v. Associated Press | |||||
| Citations | 248 U.S. 215 (more) | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| The information found in AP news was not copyrightable as the information respecting current events contained in the literary production is not the creation of a writer but is a report of matters that ordinarily are publici juris; it is the history of the day. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Pitney, joined by White, Day, Van Devanter, McReynolds | |||||
| Dissent | Holmes, joined by McKenna | |||||
| Dissent | Brandeis | |||||
| Clarke took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | ||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| Common law copyright; publici juris; U.S. Const. art I § 8 clause 8 | ||||||
International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), is a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the common law rule that there is no copyright in facts and developed the common law doctrine of misappropriation through the tort of unfair competition. In the case, the court struggled to distinguish between interference with business practices versus interference with intellectual property rights.
Contents |
[edit] Background
Two competing news services were in the business of reporting on World War I in the US. Their business hinged on getting fast and accurate reports published. Following unfavourable reporting on British losses by William Randolph Hearst's INS, that news service was barred from using Allied telegraph lines to report news - effectively shutting down their war reporting.[1]
To continue publishing news about the war, International News Service gained access to Associated Press news through bribery, news bulletin boards and early editions of newspapers. INS members would then rewrite the news and publish it as their own, without attribution. Although INS newspapers had to wait for AP to post news before going to press, INS newspapers in the west had no such disadvantage relative to their AP counterparts. The AP brought an action seeking to enjoin INS from copying news.
[edit] Ruling
The Court held in favor of the AP with Justice Pitney writing for the majority. A vigorous dissent was given by Justice Brandeis.
Pitney held that the information found in the AP news was not copyrightable as "the information respecting current events contained in the literary production is not the creation of a writer but is a report of matters that ordinarily are publici juris; it is the history of the day." Instead, Pitney approached the issue from the perspective of unfair competition. He found that there was a quasi-property right in the news as it is "stock in trade to be gathered at the cost of enterprise, organization, skill, labor and money, and to be distributed and sold to those who will pay money for it". Thus, on account of the economic value of the news, a company can have limited proprietary interest in it against a competitor (but not the public) who would attempt to take advantage of the information. Pitney characterized INS's behavior as misappropriation. Due to the tenuous value of "hot" news, Pitney narrowed the period for which the proprietary right would apply: this doctrine "postpones participation by complainant's competitor in the processes of distribution and reproduction of news that it has not gathered, and only to the extent necessary to prevent that competitor from reaping the fruits of complainant's efforts and expenditure."[2]
Brandeis took issue with the courts creation of an entirely new proprietary interest in "hot" news.
| “ | The creation or recognition by courts of a new private right may work serious injury to the general public, unless the boundaries of the right are definitely established and wisely guarded. In order to reconcile the new private right with the public interest, it may be necessary to prescribe limitations and rules for its enjoyment; and also to provide administrative machinery for enforcing the rules. | ” |
He further stated that it was an issue best dealt with by the legislature.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
[edit] Further reading
- Epstein, Richard A. (1992). "International News Service v. Associated Press: Custom and Law as Sources of Property Rights in News". Virginia Law Review 78 (1): 85–128. doi:.
