Yes. Fox is the loser on the deal.
Now more on the “hot news” ruling. HUGH, HUGH and SERIES impact.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/10-1372/10-1372_both-2011-06-20.html
Justia.com Opinion Summary: After a bench trial, the district court entered a judgment for plaintiffs concluding that on seventeen occasions, defendant had infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights in their research reports, and that by collecting and disseminating to its own subscribers the summary recommendations with respect to securities trading contained in plaintiffs’ reports, defendant had committed the New York state law tort of “hot news” misappropriation. Defendant appealed the judgment and injunction against it on the “hot news” misappropriation claim. The court held that plaintiffs’ claim against defendant for “hot news” misappropriation of the plaintiff financial firms’ recommendations to clients and prospective clients as to trading in corporate securities was preempted by federal copyright law. Based upon principles explained and applied in National Basketball Association v. Motorola (”NBA”), the court held that because plaintiffs’ claim fell within the “general scope” of copyright, 17 U.S.C. 106, and involved the type of works protected by the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 102 and 103, and because defendant’s acts at issue did not meet the exceptions for a “hot news” misappropriation claim as recognized by NBA, the claim was preempted. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court with respect to that claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._Associated_Press
The Court held in favor of the AP, with Justice Mahlon Pitney’s writing for the majority. A vigorous dissent was given by Justice Louis D. Brandeis.
Pitney held that the information found in the AP 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, labor and money, and to be distributed and sold to those who will pay money for it”. Given 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.[2]
Pitney characterized INS’s behavior as misappropriation. Due to the tenuous value of “hot” news, Pitney narrowed the period for which the proprietary right would apply: this doctrine “postpones participation by complainant’s competitor in the processes of distribution and reproduction of news that it has not gathered, and only to the extent necessary to prevent that competitor from reaping the fruits of complainant’s efforts and expenditure.”[2]
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110620-710404.html
UPDATE: Court Reverses Ruling Restricting Publishing Of Ratings
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/21/news-aggregators-score-a-big-win/
News aggregators score a big win
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/13271614771/appeals-court-realizes-hot-news-makes-no-sense-dumps-injunction-theflyonthewall.shtml
Appeals Court Realizes Hot News Makes No Sense; Dumps Injunction On TheFlyOnTheWall
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/wall-street-banks-lose-ruling-on-research/
Big Banks Lose Ruling on Research
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43467957
Court Swats Wall Street, Lets ‘Fly’ Keep Buzzing