Re: "hot news"

On 97-05-19, Steven D. Jamar <sjamar[_at_]law.howard.edu> wrote:
>
> The "hot news" case is gone with satelite technology. News agencies
> and broadcast journalists lift from one another all the time.
> Sometimes there is a lead in - "in a copyrighted story in the XYZ
> paper today . . ." This I think is appropriate. I don't think it
> is compelled.
>
> Most papers and other media simply pay for the broad coverage - BBC
> reporters around the world, etc. - today.

I couldn't disagree more. While it may be ok on occasion to report something that aired on another network first [sort of akin to a fair use], the systematic taking of news remains actionable as misappropriation. You can be certain that if any news agency finds out that a competitor does not originate its own news but simply free rides off of the agencies reports, there will be a suit. In my opinion, so long as the news is still "hot" when taken, a misappropriation claim [as set forth in the NBA case] will succeed.

As to the on air credit, its presence or absence doesn't affect the misappropriation claim [but might be relevant to a false designation of origin claim]. These credits sometimes are compelled by wire service agreements: the wire gets to distribute a story contributed by a particular subscriber but is required, and must get the other subscribers who run the story, to give credit to the originating subscriber.

Bob Penn
<thresshold[_at_]aol.com> Received on Tue May 20 1997 - 17:50:44 GMT