Wainwright Securities Inc. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp.

Last updated
Wainwright Securities v. Wall Street Transcript Corp
United States Court of Appeals For The Second Circuit Seal.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case nameWAINWRIGHT SECURITIES INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WALL STREET TRANSCRIPT CORPORATION and Richard A. Holman, Defendants-Appellants.
Argued27 April 1977
Decided15 June 1977
Citation(s)558 F.2d 91
Case opinions
The essence or purpose of legitimate journalism is the reporting of objective facts or developments, not the appropriation of the form of expression used by the news source
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingMEDINA, OAKES and MISHLER
Keywords
copyright infringement

Wainwright Securities v. Wall Street Transcript Corp (1977) was a case in which a weekly newspaper was found to have infringed on the copyright of a publisher of reports that analyzed corporate finances, risks and opportunities. The newspaper's defense that the findings of such reports were news items was rejected, since the newspaper was found to have violated copyright through substantial similarities with the expression used in the Wainwright reports. [1]

Contents

Background

Wainwright Securities, dating back to 1868, was in the business of preparing in-depth analyses of large corporations for use by major investors such as banks, insurance companies and mutual funds. A given report may take several months to prepare, involving interviews with the company's executives and extensive research into other sources on the company and the industry as a whole. Wall Street Transcript Corp published the weekly Wall Street Transcript, providing news on business, financial and economic changes. The newspaper advertised that it provided easily digested summaries of the main research reports in its "Wall Street Roundup" section. [1]

The newspaper began publishing summaries of the Wainwright reports in 1974. Wainwright began to formally copyright its reports, and asked the Wall Street Transcript Corp to stop copying these reports, without success. Wainwright asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for an injunction and financial damages. [1]

District court findings

The district court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove irreparable injury against Wainwright, since potential customers might choose not to purchase the reports if they felt that the essential findings were available in the newspaper. The court also found that a case of copyright infringement seemed likely to succeed since the takings were substantial in quality and quantity, they probably reduced the financial value of the reports and Wall Street Transcript could have prepared their own reports from original materials rather than disseminating the Wainwright reports. The court granted a preliminary injunction, after which the case was referred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [1]

Court of appeal findings

The Court of Appeal agreed with the District Court on the finding that publication of the extracts "may materially reduce the demand for Wainwright's services," sufficiently show irreparable injury. The court went on to review the alleged copyright infringement. It considered whether publication of the excerpts fell under the category of "fair use". The court defined the fair use doctrine as "a means of balancing the exclusive rights of a copyright holder with the public's interest in dissemination of information affecting areas of universal concern, such as art, science and industry". The court quoted the more vivid description given by John Schulman in 1966 as a doctrine that distinguishes between "a true scholar and a chiseler who infringes a work for personal profit." The court also considered the defendants' claim that the reports were financial news, with publication of the extracts covered under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects Freedom of the press. [1]

The court agreed that a news event cannot by copyrighted, but pointed out that a distinction had to be made between the information about the event and the manner of expression of the person reporting the event. The latter could be copyrighted. The court quoted the finding in Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop (1976) that there is infringement in appropriating the "particular expression through similarities of treatment, details, scenes, events and characterization." It also noted that Wall Street Transcript had not, as a news reporter normally would, sought out comments on the same event from other analysts, industry experts or investors, but had simply reproduced almost verbatim the most important elements of the Wainwright report. [1] An example of very close paraphrasing is:

  • Original: And second, he says that likely to aid comparions this year was the surprisingly limited extent to which Fiber Divisions losses shrank last year
  • Paraphrase: The second development likely to aid comparisons this year was the surprisingly limited extent to which the Fiber Division's losses shrank last year. [2]

The court affirmed the district court judgement, finding that, "This was not legitimate coverage of a news event; instead it was, and there is no other way to describe it, chiseling for personal profit". [1]

Reactions

The case has been cited as an example of the principle that when the purpose of the copy is mainly financial gain, that weighs against the fair use finding. [3] The Transcript had the intent, if not the effect, of fulfilling the demand for the original work. [4] It is also an example of a finding that an abstract that summarizes narrow excerpts of creative expression from the original should be protected under fair use, but not if the excerpts appropriate most of the most creative and original elements. [5]

Related Research Articles

Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. Unlike "fair dealing" rights that exist in most countries with a British legal history, the fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works and turns on a flexible proportionality test that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.

The idea–expression distinction or idea–expression dichotomy is a legal doctrine in the United States that limits the scope of copyright protection by differentiating an idea from the expression or manifestation of that idea.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which public interest in learning about a historical figure's impressions of a historic event was held not to be sufficient to show fair use of material otherwise protected by copyright. Defendant, The Nation, had summarized and quoted substantially from A Time to Heal, President Gerald Ford's forthcoming memoir of his decision to pardon former president Richard Nixon. When Harper & Row, who held the rights to A Time to Heal, brought suit, The Nation asserted that its use of the book was protected under the doctrine of fair use, because of the great public interest in a historical figure's account of a historic incident. The Court rejected this argument holding that the right of first publication was important enough to find in favor of Harper.

J.R. O'Dwyer Company is an online and print news and information publisher covering the public relations and marketing communications fields in New York City, established in 1968.

Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. Fair dealing is found in many of the common law jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), also known as the “Betamax case”, is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs, cannot be liable for contributory infringement. The case was a boon to the home video market, as it created a legal safe haven for the technology.

Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. and J. K. Rowling v. RDR Books, 575 F.Supp.2d 513 was a copyright lawsuit brought on 31 October 2007 by the media company Warner Bros. and Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling against RDR Books, an independent publishing company based in Muskegon, Michigan. Lawyers for Rowling and Time Warner argued that RDR's attempt to publish for profit a print facsimile of The Harry Potter Lexicon, a free online guide to the Harry Potter fictional universe, constituted an infringement of their copyright and was not protected by the affirmative defense of fair use. The trial was held from 14–17 April 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In September 2008, the court ruled in Rowling's favor, and publication of the book was blocked. In 2009, RDR Books released an edited volume, eliminating the problematic long quotes found to be infringing.

In copyright law, the legal status of hyperlinking and that of framing concern how courts address two different but related Web technologies. In large part, the legal issues concern use of these technologies to create or facilitate public access to proprietary media content — such as portions of commercial websites. When hyperlinking and framing have the effect of distributing, and creating routes for the distribution of content (information) that does not come from the proprietors of the Web pages affected by these practices, the proprietors often seek the aid of courts to suppress the conduct, particularly when the effect of the conduct is to disrupt or circumvent the proprietors' mechanisms for receiving financial compensation.

The Wall Street Transcript is a paid subscription publication and Web site that publishes bi-weekly industry reports that feature equity analyst, money manager and CEO interviews. Reports typically cover two to three industries and express money managers' and analysts' views on each of the various industry sectors, as well as interviews with CEOs whose companies operate within the covered industries.

<i>Salinger v. Random House, Inc.</i> American legal case

Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90 is a United States case on the application of copyright law to unpublished works. In a case about author J. D. Salinger's unpublished letters, the Second Circuit held that the right of an author to control the way in which their work was first published took priority over the right of others to publish extracts or close paraphrases of the work under "fair use". In the case of unpublished letters, the decision was seen as favoring the individual's right to privacy over the public right to information. However, in response to concerns about the implications of this case on scholarship, Congress amended the Copyright Act in 1992 to explicitly allow for fair use in copying unpublished works, adding to 17 U.S.C. 107 the line, "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

Paraphrasing of copyrighted material may, under certain circumstances, constitute copyright infringement. In most countries that have national copyright laws, copyright applies to the original expression in a work rather than to the meanings or ideas being expressed. Whether a paraphrase is an infringement of expression, or a permissible restatement of an idea, is not a binary question but a matter of degree. Copyright law in common law countries tries to avoid theoretical discussion of the nature of ideas and expression such as this, taking a more pragmatic view of what is called the idea/expression dichotomy. The acceptable degree of difference between a prior work and a paraphrase depends on a variety of factors and ultimately depends on the judgement of the court in each individual case.

<i>Reyher v. Childrens Television Workshop</i> American legal case

Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop was a case where the author and illustrator of a children's book sued a company that had published a TV skit and a magazine story with a similar title and plot, claiming copyright infringement. The story was based on an old Russian folk tale. The court found that the plot or theme was not subject to copyright, and there had been no infringement since the book and the story or skit were quite different in all other respects. The court used the "total concept and feel" standard in reaching their decision.

<i>Wright v. Warner Books, Inc.</i> American legal case

Wright v. Warner Books (1991) was a case in which the widow of the author Richard Wright (1908–1960) claimed that his biographer, the poet and writer Margaret Walker (1915–1998), had infringed copyright by using content from some of Wright's unpublished letters and journals. The court took into account the recent ruling in Salinger v. Random House, Inc. (1987), which had found that a copyright owner had the right to control first publication, but found in favor of Walker after weighing all factors. The case had broad implications by allowing the use of library special collections for academic research.

<i>Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.</i>

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 , is a case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement of digital music. In ReDigi, record label Capitol Records claimed copyright infringement against ReDigi, a service that allows resale of digital music tracks originally purchased from the iTunes Store. Capitol Records' motion for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi was denied, and oral arguments were given on October 5, 2012.

Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC is a copyright case in which the United States District Court for the Central District of California, by granting partial summary judgment, denied most parts of the copyright claims presented by Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox) against Dish Network (Dish) for its service, a DVR-like device that allowed users to record programming that could be accessed later through any Internet-connected device. The service offered by Dish also allowed users to record any or all Fox's prime-time programs and to automatically skips commercials (AutoHop).

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung 710 F.3d 1020 No. 10-55946, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which seven film studios including Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney and Twentieth Century Fox sued Gary Fung, the owner of isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc., for contributory infringement of their copyrighted works. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of United States District Court for the Central District of California that the services and websites offered by isoHunt Web Technologies allowed third parties to download infringing copies of Columbia's works. Ultimately, Fung had "red flag knowledge" of the infringing activity on his systems, and therefore IsoHunt was held ineligible for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act § 512(c) safe harbor.

<i>Nunez v. Caribbean Intl News Corp.</i>

Núñez v. Caribbean Int’l News Corp. 235 F.3d 18 is a copyright infringement lawsuit where the court evaluated on the issue of whether unauthorized reproduction and publication of photographs that are themselves newsworthy constituted fair use. Puerto Rican newspaper El Vocero displayed photographs of Joyce Giraud, pageant winner without the photographer Sixto Núñez's permission in an article about the controversial photos. The appeal court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment that the use of the pictures qualify as fair use.

<i>Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.</i>

Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. 109 F.3d 1394 is a copyright lawsuit where the court determined if a copy of an original work’s artistic style, plot, themes, and certain key character elements qualified as fair use. Penguin Books published a book titled The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice that use the artistic style, themes and characteristics of Dr. Seuss books to tell the story of the O. J. Simpson murder case. Dr. Seuss Enterprises accuse the publisher of copyright and trademark infringement.

References

Citations
  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mishler 1977.
  2. ↑ Fishman 2011, p. 285.
  3. ↑ Fishman 2011, p. 256.
  4. ↑ Cawkell 1996, p. 176.
  5. ↑ Stuckey 1996, p. 6-38.
Sources
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.