Oprah Winfrey Not Guilty Of Copyright Infringement For Discussing America's Chubbiest President

from the idea-vs.-expression dept

Wed, Mar 30th 2011 3:32am — Mike Masnick

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?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, oprah winfrey, william howard taft

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 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...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 30 Mar 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
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 4:02am

Always championing the sleazy pirates. How much is Oprah paying you Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hiiragi Kagami (profile), 30 Mar 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 8:27am
  
  Re:
  Well done, sir. Well done.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fairuse (profile), 30 Mar 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 4:37am

fucking facts... how do they work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pixelation, 30 Mar 2011 @ 4:51am
  
  Re:
  Anymore it's however the lawyers say they work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 30 Mar 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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 4:59am
  
  Re:
  As is using "chubby" and "Oprah" in the same sentence...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - slander (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 6:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    I believe that's called "redundancy."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
slander (profile), 30 Mar 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 expos� on online voting manipulation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
icepick314, 30 Mar 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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 7:15am
  
  Re: it's OPRAH!!!
  actually, i agree (seriously) i don't believe anyone would dare convict Oprah of any wrong doing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC2, 30 Mar 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michial Thompson, 30 Mar 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gracey (profile), 30 Mar 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sean T Henry (profile), 30 Mar 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gracey (profile), 30 Mar 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
blah, 30 Mar 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gracey (profile), 30 Mar 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?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hy Max, 30 Mar 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]