International News Service v. Associated Press
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Two competing news companies were in the business of reporting on World War I in the US. Their business hinged on getting fast and accurate reports published. The Associated Press had many expensive arrangements with overseas reporters to gather news reports from the field. International News Service gained access to the APs news through bribery, news bulletin boards and early editions. INS would rewrite the news and publish it as their own. The AP brought an action against INS for copyright infringement.
[edit] Ruling
The Court held in favour 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 APs 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, labour 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. Due to the tenuous value of "hot" news, Pitney narrowed the period for which the proprietary right would apply.
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.
