Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comKey Contacts
Back
In my last post, Lovelace vs. Deepthroat: Defining fair use, I delved into an explanation of fair use statutes, discussed the four factors that judges and juries use to determine fair use and considered a recent case that provided a clear cut example of fair use. Now, I would like to discuss a more complicated case involving the same statutes that, at the time of writing, is awaiting judgment. Many in the copyright law sphere think that this ruling will set the latest precedent for the balance between copyright enforcement and fair use in the digital age.
Fox News v TVEyes
September 2, summary judgment motions from both Fox News and TVEyes became public. These motions pertain to a year-old case in which Fox News charges TVEyes with copyright claims. TVEyes is a subscription service that records, indexes and distributes television clips to customers, most of whom are in the media. Clients of the $500 per month service include the U.S. Department of Defense, the United Nations, Time Warner Cable, pro sports leagues and The New York Times.
By and large, TVEyes argues, customers of the service use it to comment and criticize broadcast news, compare and contrast coverage of events, monitor political advertising and presence, track statements about financial securities for compliance purposes and report on the media. Using its customer base, TVEyes is mounting a fair use defense by suggesting that it provides a public benefit, facilitating a level of public discourse on media coverage and the role of the media that would otherwise be impossible.
By contrast, Fox News’ argument is fairly straightforward, arguing that TVEyes’ service is devaluing the content that it produces by providing an alternate way to access that content that is not included in its ratings. Interestingly, Fox’s memorandum includes in its argument the danger that, should use of TVEyes become widespread, Fox News’ business model would be “decimated.” In light of the $500 per month fee charged by TVEyes, this seems unlikely as of yet.
Is it fair use?
For those who missed my last blog post, the four factors traditionally used to determine fair use are:
- The purpose and character of use
- The nature of the work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion taken
- The effect upon the potential market
As a thought experiment, analyze TVEyes’ use of Fox News’ content based on these criteria.
- When we talk about the purpose and character of use, often we talk about “transformative” use, under which the original content is substantially changed such that it adds new meaning or expression, or that value is being added by presenting the material in a new light. While a news show that uses Fox News clips to contrast media coverage of an issue could easily be called transformative, Fox News’ legal team is focusing on TVEyes’ use. Fox News may have a strong case here, as the only change that TVEyes is effecting is to index the content.
- Generally, copyright protections extend further to fictional works than to factual ones, as the dissemination of facts is considered to be of public benefit. Fox News has countered by invoking an old legal doctrine called “hot news misappropriation,” which protects copyrights on facts which have a short value duration, after which they move into the public domain. Whether this doctrine is valid in this case remains to be seen, but a relatively recent judgment in Barclays Capital Inc. v Theflyonthewall.com demonstrated that, in cases involving the aggregation of news on the Internet, courts are reluctant to enforce this protection.
- Because TVEyes takes all of Fox News’ video content, there is likely no defense to be made based on the amount or substantiality of the portion of content taken.
- Finally, the effect upon the potential market may be a source of serious debate. Fox News has put forth arguments that TVEyes’ use of its content is potentially depriving it of customers. TVEyes’ defense rests, in part, on the argument that individuals are not using its $500 per month service to enjoy the news, but simply as a tool to search clips and use them for largely analytical purposes.
Clearly, the issue is sensitive and complex. To form a judgment would be difficult, as it depends upon the court’s interpretation of a number of these factors. If TVEyes can make a compelling argument stating that their service is not used for public consumption but rather for purposes that serve a public benefit, it could very well be acquitted of copyright infringement.
Check out my last post on fair use and copyright infringement regarding the infamous pornstoar Linda Lovelace and the video that made her famous “Deepthroat”:
Lovelace vs Deep Throat: Defining Fair Use
- Practices: Copyright
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Fair Use In The Digital Age
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
In my last post, Lovelace vs. Deepthroat: Defining fair use, I delved into an explanation of fair use statutes, discussed the four factors that judges and juries use to determine fair use and considered a recent case that provided a clear cut example of fair use. Now, I would like to discuss a more complicated case involving the same statutes that, at the time of writing, is awaiting judgment. Many in the copyright law sphere think that this ruling will set the latest precedent for the balance between copyright enforcement and fair use in the digital age.
Fox News v TVEyes
September 2, summary judgment motions from both Fox News and TVEyes became public. These motions pertain to a year-old case in which Fox News charges TVEyes with copyright claims. TVEyes is a subscription service that records, indexes and distributes television clips to customers, most of whom are in the media. Clients of the $500 per month service include the U.S. Department of Defense, the United Nations, Time Warner Cable, pro sports leagues and The New York Times.
By and large, TVEyes argues, customers of the service use it to comment and criticize broadcast news, compare and contrast coverage of events, monitor political advertising and presence, track statements about financial securities for compliance purposes and report on the media. Using its customer base, TVEyes is mounting a fair use defense by suggesting that it provides a public benefit, facilitating a level of public discourse on media coverage and the role of the media that would otherwise be impossible.
By contrast, Fox News’ argument is fairly straightforward, arguing that TVEyes’ service is devaluing the content that it produces by providing an alternate way to access that content that is not included in its ratings. Interestingly, Fox’s memorandum includes in its argument the danger that, should use of TVEyes become widespread, Fox News’ business model would be “decimated.” In light of the $500 per month fee charged by TVEyes, this seems unlikely as of yet.
Is it fair use?
For those who missed my last blog post, the four factors traditionally used to determine fair use are:
- The purpose and character of use
- The nature of the work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion taken
- The effect upon the potential market
As a thought experiment, analyze TVEyes’ use of Fox News’ content based on these criteria.
- When we talk about the purpose and character of use, often we talk about “transformative” use, under which the original content is substantially changed such that it adds new meaning or expression, or that value is being added by presenting the material in a new light. While a news show that uses Fox News clips to contrast media coverage of an issue could easily be called transformative, Fox News’ legal team is focusing on TVEyes’ use. Fox News may have a strong case here, as the only change that TVEyes is effecting is to index the content.
- Generally, copyright protections extend further to fictional works than to factual ones, as the dissemination of facts is considered to be of public benefit. Fox News has countered by invoking an old legal doctrine called “hot news misappropriation,” which protects copyrights on facts which have a short value duration, after which they move into the public domain. Whether this doctrine is valid in this case remains to be seen, but a relatively recent judgment in Barclays Capital Inc. v Theflyonthewall.com demonstrated that, in cases involving the aggregation of news on the Internet, courts are reluctant to enforce this protection.
- Because TVEyes takes all of Fox News’ video content, there is likely no defense to be made based on the amount or substantiality of the portion of content taken.
- Finally, the effect upon the potential market may be a source of serious debate. Fox News has put forth arguments that TVEyes’ use of its content is potentially depriving it of customers. TVEyes’ defense rests, in part, on the argument that individuals are not using its $500 per month service to enjoy the news, but simply as a tool to search clips and use them for largely analytical purposes.
Clearly, the issue is sensitive and complex. To form a judgment would be difficult, as it depends upon the court’s interpretation of a number of these factors. If TVEyes can make a compelling argument stating that their service is not used for public consumption but rather for purposes that serve a public benefit, it could very well be acquitted of copyright infringement.
Check out my last post on fair use and copyright infringement regarding the infamous pornstoar Linda Lovelace and the video that made her famous “Deepthroat”:
Lovelace vs Deep Throat: Defining Fair Use