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?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 3:58am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 4:02am

    Always championing the sleazy pirates. How much is Oprah paying you Mike?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 4:17am

    Re:

    I don't think there's any US jurisdiction currently recognizing the tort of plagiarism. It may get you expelled though...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    fairuse (profile), Mar 30th, 2011 @ 4:19am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 4:37am

    fucking facts... how do they work?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 4:40am

    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)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 4:51am

    Re:

    Anymore it's however the lawyers say they work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Mar 30th, 2011 @ 4:59am

    Re:

    As is using "chubby" and "Oprah" in the same sentence...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 5:02am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Hiiragi Kagami (profile), Mar 30th, 2011 @ 5:20am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    slander (profile), Mar 30th, 2011 @ 6:06am

    Re: Re:

    I believe that's called "redundancy."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    slander (profile), Mar 30th, 2011 @ 6:09am

    Now, can we get Oprah to do a show on how copyright law is abused?


    I'd rather to see her do an exposť on online voting manipulation...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    icepick314, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 6:15am

    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)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    AC2, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 6:21am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 7:15am

    Re: it's OPRAH!!!

    actually, i agree (seriously) i don't believe anyone would dare convict Oprah of any wrong doing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Michial Thompson, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 7:30am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 7:41am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Gracey (profile), Mar 30th, 2011 @ 8:04am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    blah, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 8:06am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Mar 30th, 2011 @ 8:27am

    Re:

    Well done, sir. Well done.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Gracey (profile), Mar 30th, 2011 @ 8:31am

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 8:56am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Sean T Henry (profile), Mar 30th, 2011 @ 9:47am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Gracey (profile), Mar 30th, 2011 @ 10:23am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 1:10pm

    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Hy Max, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 11:31pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This