About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

9 Fed. Comm. B.J. 132 (1948)
Review of Recent Articles

handle is hein.journals/fedcom9 and id is 142 raw text is: 132 JOURNAL OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS BAR ASSOCIATION REVIEW OF RECENT ARTICLES Property Rights in Television Broadcasts The subject of Unauthorized Uses of Television Broadcasts is treated in an excellent article by David M. Solinger, of the New York bar, in the September issue of the Columbia Law Review' While the arrival of television as a major industry raises many interesting legal questions, Mr. Solinger thinks that answers to most of them may be found in an analysis of established legal principles and their judicious application to the new fact situations presented Discussing first the question of absolute property rights, the author notes that copyrighted musical compositions, and probably other forms of copyrighted matter, are clearly entitled to protection against unauthorized public performance for profit, which includes reception by a tavern, hotel, restaurant, theatre, etc. This is true whether the copy- right is statutory or common-law; the broadcast of a television program does not constitute a publication so as to destroy the common law copyright. Even where the program consists of material in the public domain or of a news event, there may be an absolute property right in the broadcast itself as an original intellectual production While there can be no private property rights in news as such, a running account of an event, particularly a sports event, may not be news Under the heading of unfair competition, Mr. Solinger discusses the applicability and effect of the International News Service case.2 In that case the defendant was enjoined from appropriating AP news stories and sending them to its Western subscribers. The Internaional News Service case may afford protection even where the plaintiff has no absolute property right because a news event is involved, or the broad- cast material is in the public domain. Three elements were involved -competition, damage and a quasi-property right The courts have been liberal in interpreting the requirement of competition. Damage is not as easy to prove, especially where the plaintiff is the broadcaster himself or a commercial sponsor, but it can be shown. The most es- sential element is the quasi-property right The promoter of a sports event, Mr. Solinger says, has an obvious quasi-property right in it; probably the broadcaster has also. Limitations on the use of the Inter- natonal News Service case, however, may deprive it of significance in the context of television broadcasts; some courts have refused to extend it beyond its facts and some state courts have held that it is not the law in such states. A third aspect of the problem is whether the restrictive notices with which television broadcasters begin and end each broadcast day are 148 Columbia Law Review 848. The same ground is covered by Mr. Solinger m briefer compass and less legalistic style in Fortune for January, 1949, p. 130. 2International News Service v Associated Press, 248 U. S. 215 (1918).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most