International News Service v. Associated Press
1918 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about International News Service v. Associated Press?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), also known as INS v. AP or simply the INS case, is a 1918 decision of the United States Supreme Court that enunciated the misappropriation doctrine of federal intellectual property common law: a "quasi-property right" may be created against others by one's investment of effort and money in an intangible thing, such as information or a design. The doctrine is highly controversial and criticized by many legal scholars, but it has its supporters.[1]
International News Service v. Associated Press | |
---|---|
Argued May 2–3, 1918 Decided December 23, 1918 | |
Full case name | International News Service v. Associated Press |
Citations | 248 U.S. 215 (more) 39 S. Ct. 68; 63 L. Ed. 211 |
Holding | |
While the information found in AP news was not copyrightable and subject to publici juris, AP has a quasi-property interest during the production of "hot news". | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Pitney, joined by White, Day, Van Devanter, McReynolds |
Dissent | Holmes, joined by McKenna |
Dissent | Brandeis |
Clarke took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
Common law copyright; publici juris; U.S. Const. art I § 8 clause 8 | |
Overruled by | |
The INS decision recognized the doctrine of U.S. copyright law that there is no copyright in facts, which the Supreme Court later greatly elaborated in the Feist case in 1991, but INS nonetheless extended the prior law of unfair competition to cover an additional type of interference with business expectations: "misappropriation" of the product of "sweat of the brow." The case was decided when a body of federal common law existed for business practices and torts, which the Supreme Court had power to declare or create, but two decades later, the Supreme Court abolished that body of substantive law and held that state law must govern the field henceforth. Accordingly, the INS case no longer has precedential force although state courts are free to follow its reasoning if they so choose.