Re: "hot news"

Bob Penn <thresshold[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Of course, this again goes to NBA v. STATS, and it is important to distinguish appropriation from misappropriation, especially in light of the Feist decision.

Brian D. Saucier
<bsaucier[_at_]Counsel.COM> Received on Thu May 22 1997 - 19:48:02 GMT