Oprah Winfrey Not Guilty Of Copyright Infringement For Discussing America's Chubbiest President
from the idea-vs.-expression dept
Last year, we wrote about a plainly ridiculous lawsuit filed against Oprah Winfrey, claiming copyright infringement, because she apparently mentioned some factual information on TV that had been included in a booklet sent to her in the hopes that it might be promoted. Apparently, the bit of information was the fact that William Howard Taft was the US’s “chubbiest president.” As we pointed out at the time, it was hard to see how that was any form of copyright infringement, so it’s nice to see that the court has agreed, and sided with Oprah, while giving the plaintiff a quick lesson in how copyright law works:
Copyright law protects only an author’s original expression; historical facts and information in the public domain are not copyrightable. Id. at 547-48 (“[N]o author may copyright facts or ideas.”); …. ( “[C]opyright protection does not include facts and ideas, but only their expression.”). There is “thin” copyright protection for an author’s choices as to the presentation of factual matter…. This protection, however, is limited to the author’s original, creative contributions, since copyright “protects only the elements that owe their origin to the compiler-the selection, coordination, and arrangement of facts”….
The material plaintiffs seek to protect here is not original. Plaintiffs argue that Winfrey infringed Harris’s copyright in his booklet by referring to an historical fact, President Taft’s weight… Winfrey’s use of this fact, even if she learned it from Harris’s booklet, does not infringe any copyright Harris may have held. This information is not original to Harris, but rather is a piece of “raw data” that preexisted Harris’s booklet and is available from numerous external sources.
Now, can we get Oprah to do a show on how copyright law is abused?
Filed Under: copyright, oprah winfrey, william howard taft
Comments on “Oprah Winfrey Not Guilty Of Copyright Infringement For Discussing America's Chubbiest President”
Hum…I agree that it is not copyright infringement. But couldn’t it be some form of plagiarism (I’m assuming she didn’t credit the author of the book)? Even so, it would be a very thin claim of plagiarism.
Re: Re:
I don’t think there’s any US jurisdiction currently recognizing the tort of plagiarism. It may get you expelled though…
Re: Re: Re:
…and I stand corrected. Pardon me for being a sarcastic douche.
Looks like California (shocker) does, or at least did recognize the tort at one time. A cursory Westlaw search spit out a several older decisions from that state. Some more recent opinions, i.e., those after ’76, indicate that such state law claims are often preempted by 15 U.S.C.
Re: Re: Re: Chubby is as Chubby does, Sir!
“Now, can we get Oprah to do a show on how copyright law is abused?”
Yeah, or how about a show on the Chubbiest Talk Show Host?
CBMHB
Always championing the sleazy pirates. How much is Oprah paying you Mike?
Re: Re:
I love a great cup of coffee in the morning along with a hearty laugh. Usually, I find this from any number of news sources, but today, young lad, you have beat them all to the punch.
Good day to you, nuts, as you’ve just started mine off with a splendid heart-felt joy.
Re: Re:
Well done, sir. Well done.
No plagiarism
Not plagiarism in any thickness. It is a raw fact, “weight of x”. Kind of hard to plagiarize a single fact like that.
fucking facts… how do they work?
Re: Re:
Anymore it’s however the lawyers say they work.
Can’t you see that the use of “chubby” and “president” in the same sentence is a unique artistic expression deserving protection under the auspicious of copyright?!!11111
Sheeesh some people will never learn.
(/s – jic)
Re: Re:
As is using “chubby” and “Oprah” in the same sentence…
Re: Re: Re:
I believe that’s called “redundancy.”
I’d rather to see her do an expos? on online voting manipulation…
it's OPRAH!!!
she’s Oprah for gawd-sakes!!!!
she can download every song on Limewire and redistribute it, copy and sell entire Harry Potter books for herself (just change the names), and use a color copier on Picasso and she STILL would get away without any penalty!!!!!
(sarcasm btw)
Re: it's OPRAH!!!
actually, i agree (seriously) i don’t believe anyone would dare convict Oprah of any wrong doing.
protection of factual information
It’s worrying that the court referred to information “in the public domain”…it suggests that factual information that could not have been obtained from another source could have been protected by copyright.
Maybe not wrong, but at least a bit shitty
Oprah may not have been in the wrong, but if she did in fact LEARN the information from the guys work, the least she could have done is make a joking reference to his work.
She is in a position where she makes names for lots of people through promoting their works, but from my perspective she is quite discriminating in who she promotes and sho she burns, and as a result I personally avoid purchasing anything promoted by her.
Re: Maybe not wrong, but at least a bit shitty
I think in general that’s a fair criticism–I think most would agree that attribution is a positive and desirable social norm.
In this particular case, though, mentioning a single fact that she learned from the booklet is forgivable IMO. I can spout many pointless facts and I could not tell you from whence they came.
I realize part of your point is that she is very calculated in her “mentionings” and that may have been the case here. But whether it was or not is unknowable and cannot be proven.
I guess I’d wonder if she actually did “quote the book”, since there is a lot of other source material for Taft, and one lawyer indicates that her response was an answer to a question asked on her show that day.
http://copyrightlitigation.blogspot.com/2011/03/oprah-winfrey-wins-copyright-battle.html
What are the chances? I mean…she reads this guy’s “booklet” and then someone asks a question that relates only specifically to something in the book?
But wikipedia also has the information about Taft’s obesity…the problem is, you’d have to wonder how she would have known the answer to that without using some sort of research…perhaps because had recently read it in that booklet?
I don’t know, but I’d have to agree it isn’t copyright infringement…the rest (morale or not?) depends entirely on how she came about that knowledge.
Re: Re:
“the problem is, you’d have to wonder how she would have known the answer to that without using some sort of research…perhaps because had recently read it in that booklet?”
Someone could have had it popup on the teleprompter.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, somewhat similar to what I was thinking. And that being the case, why would she have that particular question on a teleprompter if she hadn’t in fact read this guy’s booklet?
Although, not every book/booklet/phamphlet is “good”, and she might have opted not to say anything if she didn’t like his book or found it of little value. After all…the old adage is “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything”. On the other hand, she may not have read it, but the producer or whoever puts random questions in the teleprompter read it.
How many lawsuits are just to get attention
I’m guessing the lawsuit was more about the PR than about winning. Now that everyone is reporting the ridiculousness of the stunt, I’m sure the guy has sold a few of these booklets.
Re: How many lawsuits are just to get attention
Maybe it’s just me, but why would anyone pay for such information (that contained in the booklet) when it can be had for free?
Re: Re: How many lawsuits are just to get attention
Or from memory? When in school as a kid? Just seeing a picture of Taft, one would likely conclude for themselves that he was quite the portly dude.
Oprah Winfrey is a major copyright troll herself. Want proof? Just try posting a short clip of one of Winfrey’s shows from 20 or 30 years ago on Youtube — and see how quickly it gets taken down.
The worst part is when people invited to speak on that show post a video clip of themselves talking. Big mistake – Oprah Winfrey owns everyone’s own words, too, even though she paid nothing for it.