Re: "hot news" myth

From: Spectrum Press <specpress[_at_]earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 08:12:02 -0600

On 27 May 97, Kevin Gard <gard[_at_]switch.rockwell.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/22/97, Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dan Agin <specpress[_at_]earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > News is not protected, only the expression of news is protected.
> >
> > This statement is true only in copyright analysis. The common law
> > tort of misappropriation is alive, if not entirely well, in many
> > jurisdictions.
> >
> > > So what are we talking about here? Is there such an entity as a
> > > "misappropriation" of a fact?
> >
> > There may very well be. That, at least, as I understand it, is
> > the point of this thread.
>
> See International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215
> (1918), case on point werein the US Supreme Ct. protected the value
> of news ("fact") collection over and above the expression.

So we have the Supreme Court decision in INS v. AP (1918). If I am not mistaken, that was the same court that approved the sterilization of mentally retarded individuals. So maybe there is more than one decision of that court that needs to be revisited. It seems to me that if there are no proprietary rights resulting from collecting names for a telephone book, there are also no such rights for collecting news (facts). Which means a modern court, to be consistent in the face of the Feist v. Rural decision, will probably overturn INS v. AP.

Dan Agin

---

Spectrum Press Inc.
specpress[_at_]earthlink.net
"It's the words that make us free." Received on Wed May 28 1997 - 13:17:30 GMT