Below is an overview of US case law[1] confirming that there is no copyright in news or history, only in the way of expressing it. This has since long been accepted by courts in the USA, but also in most other countries.[2] For more information about US copyright law, see the website of the US Copyright Office.

Chicago Record-Herald Co. v. Tribune Ass’n: copyright for a news article but not for the news facts

An early example is the case of Chicago Record-Herald Co. v. Tribune Ass’n, where the court stated that news is not copyrightable as such. The court added that “in so far as the (newspaper) article involves authorship and literary quality and style, apart from the bare recital of the facts or statement of news, it is protected by the copyright law.”[3]

The court found that “the arrangement and manner of statement plainly discloses a distinct literary flavor and individuality of expression peculiar to authorship, bringing the article clearly within the purview and protection of the Copyright Law.”[4]

The case concerned the unauthorized copying by the Chicago Herald of parts of a newspaper article originally published in the New York Tribune. [5]

The court found that the Chicago Herald had infringed the New York Tribune’s copyrights, by copying a substantial portion of the original copyrighted article (i.e., not just the bare facts, but the literary quality and style of the article had been copied).

Eisenschiml v. Fawcett Publications: no copyright for historical research and facts

An example with regard to historical facts is the case of Eisenschiml v. Fawcett Publications, where a journalist and his magazine publisher were acquitted from copyright infringement for having used new information on the assassination of Abraham Lincoln that had recently been uncovered by historical research.

The court found that the facts uncovered by the historian had become part of the public domain.[6]

International News Service v. Associated Press: copyright for the expression but not for the news or historic events

In International News Service v. Associated Press, the Supreme Court for the first time considered the question of property in news and stated that it is necessary to recognize that news matter has a dual character, “distinguishing between the substance of the information and the particular form or collocation of words in which the writer has communicated it.”[7]

The Supreme Court accepted that, as literary productions, news articles might be the subjects of copyright. However, the Supreme Court added: “But the news element—the information respecting current events contained in the literary production—is not the creation of the writer, but is a report of matters that ordinarily are publici juris; it is the history of the day. It is not to be supposed that the framers of the Constitution, when they empowered Congress ‘to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries’ (Const. art. 1, § 8, par. 8), intended to confer upon one who might happen to be the first to report a historic event the exclusive right for any period to spread the knowledge of it.”[8]

In other words, the specific expression of a news event or a historic event may be protected by copyright, but the events themselves are in the public domain and are not subject to copyright protection.[9]

The Supreme Court ultimately decided the case on the basis of unfair competition in business (i.e., the so called “hot news” doctrine), rather than on the basis of copyright sensu stricto.[10]

Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises: copyright for expressions but not for historical facts

In the case Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, the US Supreme Court explained that President Ford could not prevent others from copying bare historical facts from his autobiography,[11] but that he could prevent others from copying his “subjective descriptions and portraits of public figures.”[12]

 

Feist v. Rural Telephone Service: copyright for compilations of facts but not for the facts themselves

 

In Feist v. Rural Telephone Service, the Supreme Court affirmed that facts – whether they are scientific, historical, biographical, or news of the day – do not trigger copyright because they lack originality.[13] However, factual compilations may possess the requisite degree of originality and thus be subject to copyright protection (though, the protection granted is rather thin, see below).

Davies v. Bowes: no copyright for factual news stories

The case of Davies v. Bowes concerned a claim for copyright infringement by a play that was based on a newspaper story. The court dismissed the news reporter’s claim because his story was presented as news (“it was printed as news; it was presented to the public as matter of fact and not of fiction”).[14]

Since the work was presented as a news story, the work was presumed to be factual, and the plaintiff was effectively estopped to say that the work was fictitious. As a consequence, the court found that there was no copyright in the content (i.e., the facts) of the work (as opposed to the particular expression of the work), and the news reporter could not restrain the use of the facts in a subsequent dramatization.[15]

 

Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc.: no copyright for historical research

 

In the court case of Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that historical research is not copyrightable: “We, however, cannot subscribe to the view that an author is absolutely precluded from saving time and effort by referring to and relying upon prior published material. (…) It is just such wasted effort that the proscription against the copyright of ideas and facts, and to a lesser extent the privilege of fair use, are designed to prevent.”[16]

 

The Supreme Court later approvingly cited this passage in its rebuttal of the so-called “sweat of the brow” doctrine.[17] The fact that that the defendant’s book relied heavily on previously published newspaper and magazine articles did not create a presumption of infringement.[18]

The Second Circuit Court found that biographers are permitted to use earlier works that deal with the same subject and to occasionally quote from such works because of the public benefit in encouraging the development and distribution of historical and biographical works: “Biographies, of course, are fundamentally personal histories and it is both reasonable and customary for biographers to refer to and utilize earlier works dealing with the subject of the work and occasionally to quote directly from such works. (…) This practice is permitted because of the public benefit in encouraging the development of historical and biographical works and their public distribution.”[19]

Time, Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates: copyright for an amateur film of President Kennedy’s assassination

 

The case of Time, Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates concerned the use by the defendants – the author, publisher and distributor of a book dealing with the assassination of President Kennedy – of various frames of the plaintiff’s copyrighted amateur film of the assassination.

In their book, the defendants included charcoal sketches based on frames of the amateur film of the assassination. Time (who had obtained the copyrights from the original maker of the film, i.e. Mr. Zapruder) sued the defendants for copyright infringement. One of the arguments brought up by the defendants was that the film depicted a news event, which by its nature is not subject to copyright protection.

The court agreed that news events as such cannot be copyrighted but added that this argument was irrelevant since the plaintiff “claims no copyright in the news element of the event but only in the particular form of record by Zapruder”.[20] The court added that the film itself was copyrightable because it contained “many elements of creativity. Among other things, Zapruder selected the type of camera (movies, not snapshots), the type of film (color), the ttoe of lens (telephoto), the area in which the pictures were to be taken, the time they were to be taken, and (after testing several sites) the spot on which the camera would be operated.”[21]

 

Gardner v. Nizer: a biography does not infringe copyright on an earlier biography

 

In the case of Gardner v. Nizer, the plaintiff was the author of a biography on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The defendant also wrote a book on the Rosenberg atomic espionage trial. The court judged that the facts covered by both books were not protected by copyright: the court held that: “historical facts and events in themselves are not protected by copyright”[22] and “Because biographical works are basically personal histories, two biographies of an individual will necessarily be similar in content and copyright protection is often denied.”[23]

Wainwright & Co. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp.: the expression of a news report may be protected by copyright

In the case of Wainwright & Co. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., the defendants had published abstracts of the plaintiff’s financial research reports. These abstracts appropriated almost verbatim the most creative and original aspects of the plaintiff’s analytical research reports.

The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in International News Service v. Associated Press, stating that it is important to differentiate between the substance of the information contained in the report (which is not protected by copyright) and the particular form in which the author of the report has communicated it (which is protected).[24] The court found that the defendants had appropriated the particular expression of the original news reports, thereby infringing copyright on these reports: “Here, the appellants did not bother to distinguish between the events contained in the reports and the manner of expression used by the Wainwright analysts.”[25]

Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc.: limited copyright protection for historical accounts

 

In the court case of Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the court stated that “the scope of copyright in historical accounts is narrow indeed, embracing no more than the author’s original expression of particular facts and theories”,[26] and that the interpretation of historical facts or historical theories – in casu, the hypothesis that the crash of the German Hindenburg zeppelin in 1937 was caused by sabotage – is not protected by copyright and open to free use by subsequent authors.[27]

The court stated that facts are in the public domain and that the defendant had the right to avail himself of the facts or historical interpretation of facts contained in the plaintiff’s book and to “use such information, whether correct or incorrect, in his own literary work”[28]

Some authors have criticized the Hoehling decision, blaming the court for assuming that historical facts and interpretations can exist as objective and discoverable truths, whereas in fact history involves a subjective process of recreating a lost world that is not open to objective interpretations. This process of imaginative reconstruction brings with it that historical accounts involve a high degree of originality and do not merge with the historical facts as such. As a consequence, the authors claim that historical fiction should be open to broader copyright protection than pretended by the Hoehling court.[29]

However, as the court in Effie Film, LLC v. Pomerance pointed out, these critiques seem to miss the mark.[30] The court in Hoehling merely refused the monopolization of historical facts and historical discourse by rejecting broad copyright protection to historical accounts. In other words, the rationale behind the court’s finding directly relates to First Amendment values: “To avoid a chilling effect on authors who contemplate tackling a historical issue or event, broad latitude must be granted to subsequent authors who make use of historical subject matter, including theories or plots.”[31]

Moreover, the critique on the Hoehling decision seems to bring with it that historians are granted copyright protection because of their laborious efforts in interpreting historical facts. This would not be in line with the US Supreme Court’s rejection of the “sweat of the brow” criterion of originality in the case of Feist.

 

Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc.: no copyright for research

 

In the case of Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., a film studio produced a television movie about the kidnapping of the daughter of a wealthy real estate developer (based on real facts). The kidnapping story had earlier been described in appellee’s book. At first instance, a jury found that the scriptwriter of the film had relied almost entirely on the appellee’s book for writing the screenplay. On appeal, the judgment was reversed, because there was uncertainty as to whether the jury was misled. The case had been presented to the jury on the false premise that the labor of research by an author is protected by copyright.

The appeals court stated clearly that research is not copyrightable: “There is no rational basis for distinguishing between facts and the research involved in obtaining facts. To hold that research is copyrightable is no more or no less than to hold that the facts discovered as a result of research are entitled to copyright protection.”[32]

 

Peckarsky v. American Broadcasting Co.: no copyright for news facts

 

In the case of Peckarsky v. American Broadcasting Co., a journalist sued a broadcasting company alleging various claims, including copyright infringement. More precisely, the journalist claimed that the broadcasting company’s “news spots” on irregularities in former US President Carter’s taxes were based on his own investigative article on the same facts.

The court found that the facts reported were unprotectable,[33] and that the similarities in factual material were distinctly subordinate to the theme of the newscasts. The references in the defendant’s broadcasts to the plaintiff’s work were incidental to the publication of ideas and news reports that were of benefit to the public.

Moreover, the court found that the broadcasts reported numerous additional facts and allegations based on the broadcasting company’s own investigations. The court stated: “To hold that plaintiff had a copyright on this material would be inconsistent with copyright law precepts and entirely inimical to First Amendment principles.”[34] The court also stated: “Although a reporter’s mode of expression is protected by copyright, the facts reported are not themselves so protected. (…) Similarly, the Copyright Act does not extend copyright protection to ideas contained within the article.”[35]

Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc.: differences in plot outweigh similar facts

In the case of Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., a movie and a book narrated a similar story on the killing of two police officers and the subsequent manhunt for the killer in New York’s South Bronx neighborhood.

However, differences in plot and structure outweighed the general likeness of the two works. In other words, the two works were not considered substantially similar, and therefore there was no copyright infringement. The court found that the fact that the book and the film shared an identical setting, and that police officers were central characters in both works did not justify copyright protection.

The court stated that: “copyright protection in this circuit does not extend to facts or to true events, even if they are discovered through original research.”[36] The producers of the film therefore were free to avail themselves of the facts contained in the earlier published book, so long as they did not appropriate the book’s unique expression of the facts.

Georgia Television Co. v. TV News Clips of Atlanta, Inc.: copyright for news reports

In the court case Georgia Television Co. v. TV News Clips of Atlanta, Inc., a television station brought a copyright infringement claim against a television news monitoring and clipping service provider. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction based on the fact that the television station had established a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.

The court stated that, although there is no copyright on news events as such, news reports that involve editorial discretion and creativity are subject to copyright protection.[37] Such protection extends to electronic news reports as well as written reports. The court stated: “Copyright protection does not extend to news ‘events’ or the facts or ideas which are the subject of the news reports. (…) However, news reports, as distinguished from their factual basis, involve editorial discretion and creativity and thus are subject to copyright protection.”[38]

Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc. v. Comline Bus. Data, Inc.: copyright for compilations of news facts

In the case of Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc. v. Comline Bus. Data, Inc., a publisher of financial, business, and industry news filed a copyright infringement case against the defendant’s offering for sale of “abstracts” of its news articles. The defendant argued that the only similarity between its abstracts and the plaintiff’s articles was that they reported the same unprotected facts.

The court of appeals stated that: “facts, by their nature, are never original to an author. (…) Compilations of facts, however, may be protected by copyright because they can display originality in their selection, arrangement or presentation of facts. (…) Descriptions of facts afford even more room for originality.”[39] The court found that most of the abstracts were substantially similar to the plaintiff’s articles (direct and even word-for-word translations that were edited only for clarity). The court concluded that the defendant had copied the original expression of the plaintiff, thereby infringing the plaintiff’s copyright.

Associated Press v. Meltwater U.S. Holdings, Inc.: copyright for factual compilations

In the case of Associated Press v. Meltwater U.S. Holdings, Inc., a press agency filed action against an internet news monitoring service for copyright infringement. The court first stated that the reporting of facts is not protectable under the Copyright Act, since facts are “never original to an author.”[40] However, the court added that compilations of facts may be protected under the Copyright Act, because the arrangement or presentation of facts can display originality. The court concluded that “news articles may be entitled to protection under the Copyright Act to the extent they contain original expression.”[41] The defendant in this case did not contest the plaintiff’s ownership of a valid copyright in the articles. Neither did the defendant contest having copied protected elements of those works. The defendant rather relied on a range of affirmative defenses (i.e., fair use, implied license, estoppel, laches, and copyright misuse).

Author: Bart Van Besien

Lawyer specialised in copyright and other intellectual property rights (in the EU, but interested in the USA too)

 

[1] This is not an exhaustive overview.

[2] For instance, in the British court case of Walter v. Steinkopff (3 Ch. 489 (1892)), the defendant was found to have infringed the copyright of the plaintiff for having published extracts from articles (including a letter by Rudyard Kipling) that were originally published in The Times in its own newspaper The St James’ Gazette. The court found that the plaintiff did not claim copyright in the news itself and that “the form of the language or modes of expression by which information is conveyed” merited copyright protection.

[3] Chicago Record-Herald Co. v. Tribune Ass’n, 275 F. 797, at 798-799 (7^th Cir. 1921)

[4] Chicago Record-Herald Co. v. Tribune Ass’n, 275 F. 797, at 799 (7^th Cir. 1921)

[5] The article(s) reported on Germany’s hope of winning World War I by reason of its submarines.

[6] Eisenschiml v. Fawcett Publications, 246 F.2d 598, 601 (7^th Cir. 1957). See also: Oxford Book Co. v. Coll. Entrance Book Co., 98 F.2d 688, at 691 (2d Cir. 1938), stating that copyright on a history book gave no monopoly of the contents described in the book; and Echevarria v. Warner Bros. Pictures, 12 F. Supp. 632, at 638 (S.D. Cal. 1935), stating “One cannot build a story around a historical incident and then claim exclusive right to the use of the incident.”

[7] International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, at 234 (1918).

[8] International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, at 234 (1918).

[9] In the same sense, see for instance, Collins v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 106 F.2d 83, at 86 (2d Cir. 1939); Greenbie v. Noble, 151 F. Supp. 45, at 62 (S.D.N.Y. 1957); Holdredge v. Knight Pub. Corp., 214 F. Supp. 921, at 923 (S.D. Cal. 1963); Gardner v. Nizer, 391 F. Supp. 940, at 942 (S.D.N.Y. 1975); Suid v. Newsweek Magazine, 503 F. Supp. 146, at 147 (D.D.C. 1980); and Comins v. Discovery Commc’ns, Inc., 200 F. Supp. 2d 512, at 519 (D. Md. 2002). In Axelbank v. Rony, the Ninth Circuit Court stated that the fact that the source of a work (in casu, the work was a documentary film consisting of news-reel shots and photographs of Russian historical events) is in the public domain does not void the copyright of the work, but rather limits the protection to the new and original contribution of the author (Axelbank v. Rony, 277 F.2d 314 (9^th Cir. 1960), with reference to American Code Co. v. Bensinger, 282 F. 829, at 834 (2 Cir. 1922)).

[10] Stephen Fishman, Copyright and the Public Domain, New York, Law Journal Press, 2013, § 7.03(1), 7-27 (see National-Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 1996)).

[11] Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S., at 556-557.

[12] Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S., at 563.

[13] Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. at 348 (1991).

[14] Davies v. Bowes, 209 F. 53, at 55 (S. D.N.Y. 1913).

[15] Davies v. Bowes, 209 F. 53, at 55 (S. D.N.Y. 1913, aff’d 219 F. 178 C.C.A. 1914: The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because plaintiff failed to secure a valid copyright registration).

[16] Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 366 F.2d 303, at 310 (2d Cir. 1966 (citations omitted)). See also: Key Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today Pub. Enterprises, Inc., 945 F.2d 509, at 516 (2d Cir. 1991); Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, at 978 (2d Cir. 1980); Worth v. Selchow & Righter Co., 827 F.2d 569, at 574 (9th Cir. 1987).

[17] Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499, at 354 U.S. (1991).

[18] Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 366 F.2d 303, at 306 (2d Cir. 1966).

[19] Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 366 F.2d 303, at 307 (2d Cir. 1966) (citations omitted). In the same sense: Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell, 803 F.2d 1253, at 1263 (2d Cir. 1986): “Like the biography, the interview is an invaluable source of material for social scientists, and later use of verbatim quotations within reason is both foreseeable and desirable.”; and Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, at 978 (2d Cir. 1980): “To avoid a chilling effect on authors who contemplate tackling an historical issue or event, broad latitude must be granted to subsequent authors who make use of historical subject matter, including theories or plots.”

[20] Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates, 293 F.Supp. 130, at 143 (1968).

[21] Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates, 293 F.Supp. 130, at 143 (1968).

[22] Gardner v. Nizer, 391 F. Supp. 940, at 942 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). In the same sense, see the US Supreme Court decision in International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, at 234 (1918) (the Supreme Court distinguishes between “the substance of the information and the particular form or collocation of words in which the writer has communicated it”); See also Morse v. Fields, 127 F.Supp. 63, at 65 (S.D.N.Y. 1954); Greenbie v. Noble, 151 F. Supp. 45, at 62 (S.D.N.Y. 1957); Holdredge v. Knight Pub. Corp., 214 F. Supp. 921, at 923 (S.D. Cal. 1963); Suid v. Newsweek Magazine, 503 F. Supp. 146, at 147 (D.D.C. 1980); Allen v. Susskind Hall of Fame Corp., 82 CIV. 2339 (RLC), 1982 WL 1282 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 1982); and Comins v. Discovery Commc’ns, Inc., 200 F. Supp. 2d 512, at 519 (D. Md. 2002).

[23] Gardner v. Nizer, 391 F. Supp. 940, at 942-943 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).

[24] H.C. Wainwright & Co. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., 558 F.2d 91, at 95 (2d Cir. 1977).

[25] H.C. Wainwright & Co. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., 558 F.2d 91, at 96 (2d Cir. 1977).

[26] Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, at 974 (2d Cir. 1980). In the same sense, In the same sense, Narell v. Freeman, 872 F.2d 907, at 910 (9th Cir. 1989). In fact, where the court states that the protection of historical accounts is narrow, this does not mean that the original expression of a historian would be less protected than the original expression of an author writing in another field. It only means that copyright expression in historical accounts does not extend to the facts, ideas or theories described. In the same sense: P. Goldstein, Goldstein on Copyright, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, New York, 2013, § 2.14.4, p. 2:175-2:176.

[27] Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, at 979 (2d Cir. 1980).

[28] Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, at 979 (2d Cir. 1980). In the same sense: Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365, at 1371 (5th Cir. 1981).

[29] In this sense, William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright, Thomson Reuters, 2013, § 3:63; Scafidi, Susan, “Digital Property/Analog History”, Loy. L.A. L. Rev., 2004, Vol. 38, 245; and Beall, Hartwell Harris, “Can Anyone Own a Piece of the Clock? The Troublesome Application of Copyright Law to Works of Historical Fiction, Interpretation, and Theory”, Emory L.J., 1993, Vol. 42, 254.

[30] Effie Film, LLC v. Pomerance, 909 F. Supp. 2d 273, at 294-95 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

[31] Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, at 978 (2d Cir. 1980). In the same sense: Effie Film, LLC v. Pomerance, 909 F. Supp. 2d 273, 293-294 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

[32] Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365, at 1372 (5th Cir. 1981). In the same sense, Garcia-Goyco v. Puerto Rico Highway Auth., 275 F. Supp. 2d 142, 151 (D.P.R. 2003). See also: Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44, at 49 (2d Cir. 1986): “(…) copyright protection in this circuit does not extend to facts or to true events, even if they are discovered through original research.” In fact, the only court case that has been interpreted in the sense that results from research might be protected by copyright is Toksvig v. Bruce Publishing Co., 181 F.2d 664 (7^th Cir. 1950). However, it seems that the court in Toksvig based its decision on the ground that the defendant had appropriated copyrighted expression from the plaintiff’s derivative work (an English translation of Hans Christian Anderson’s letters), rather than on the ground that the plaintiff’s research was protected by copyright (in the same sense, P. Goldstein, Goldstein on Copyright, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, New York, 2013, § 2.14.4, p. 2:174, note 122).

[33] Peckarsky v. American Broadcasting Co., 603 F. Supp. 688, at 694-695 (D.D.C. 1984).

[34] Peckarsky v. American Broadcasting Co., 603 F. Supp. 688, at 695 (D.D.C. 1984).

[35] Peckarsky v. Am. Broad. Co., Inc., 603 F. Supp. 688, at 694 (D.D.C. 1984) (citations omitted).

[36] Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44, at 49 (2d Cir. 1986). In the same sense, Friedman v. ITC Int’l Television Corp., 644 F. Supp. 46, at 48 (E.D.N.Y. 1986): copyright protection does not extend to facts or true events, even if they are discovered through original research; defendants’ television broadcast entitled “Disraeli: Portrait of a Romantic” did not infringe plaintiff’s copyright in her biographical work entitled “Benjamin Disraeli”, since there was substantial dissimilarity in perspective and language between the two works.

[37] Georgia Television Co. v. TV News Clips of Atlanta, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 939, at 946 (N.D. Ga. 1989). In the same sense, H.C. Wainwright & Co. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., 558 F.2d 91, at 95 (2d Cir. 1977).

[38] Georgia Television Co. v. TV News Clips of Atlanta, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 939, at 946 (N.D. Ga. 1989) (citations omitted).

[39] Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc. v. Comline Bus. Data, Inc., 166 F.3d 65, at 70 (2d Cir. 1999). In the same sense: Whitehead v. CBS/Viacom, Inc., 315 F. Supp.2d 1, at 11 (D.D.C. 2004). “Facts are never original and no one may claim copyright protection for facts.” In the Whitehead case, plaintiff brought an action of copyright infringement against CBS/Viacom for allegedly infringing his copyrighted short plays in writing the screenplay and in producing the miniseries “Blonde” (both the plays and the miniseries treated facts about Marilyn Monroe). The court rejected the infringement claim in so far that the claim relied on facts that appear in both the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s work.

[40] Associated Press v. Meltwater U.S. Holdings, Inc., 931 F. Supp. 2d 537, at 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (reference to Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc. v. Comline Bus. Data, Inc., 166 F.3d 65, at 70 (2d Cir. 1999)).

[41] Associated Press v. Meltwater U.S. Holdings, Inc., 931 F. Supp. 2d 537, at 549-50 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citations omitted to Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc. v. Comline Business Data, Inc., 166 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir.1999)).