This article discusses the law on the copyright of news headlines and explores the case law related to whether media publishers can protect their headlines as original literary works.
Media companies are trying to get copyright protection through newspaper headlines on the Internet. News publishers claim that news headlines are eligible for copyright protection as original literary works of copyright law. As early as 1918 from
International News Agency v. Associated Press 248 US 215 from
The US Supreme Court believes that there is virtually no copyright or 'from
News of the dayfrom
However, unlike the Commonwealth countries like Australia that do not recognize theft of infringement, the United States acknowledges the doctrine of stealing hot news. This infringement gives media publishers and other organizations the right to protect other entities from publishing certain “facts” or data, including news and other time-sensitive information, during a window, thereby enabling organizations that invest in data to recover their investments. . In the popular news theft operation, some standards must be met
As noted above, the Commonwealth Court rejected the unfair competition infringements enacted by the United States and only ruled against such cases under copyright law. The court has been reluctant to provide literary copyright for titles, characters and news headlines. However, newspaper publishers have recently filed lawsuits for copyright infringement in Australia in the form of headlines and partial articles on the grounds that copying or summarizing titles is equivalent to theft of their content. Newspaper publishers attempt to obtain copyright protection in their headlines as independent original literary works under copyright legislation.
In order to protect copyright, literary works must exist, rather than every literary work in the legal sense.
Often, individual words, phrases, advertising slogans, characters, and news headlines are all denied copyright protection, even if they were invented or newly created by the author. The court gave different reasons for refusing copyright protection for such works. One reason the court raised was that the “work” was too trivial or insufficient to obtain copyright protection. in the case of from
Exxon Corporation v. Exxon Insurance Consultants Ltd  3 All ER 241 from
It is a leading British precedent in which copyright is rejected as Exxon as an original literary work.
ExxonMobil believes it has copyright from
Investing time and energy to hire a linguist to invent the word, arguing that the actual size of the literary work does not prevent the work from being copyrighted. The court held that the work was too short or too small to constitute a copyright work.
The court also pointed out that although the word was invented and original, it has no special meaning, and it is 'from
' a famous poem for Lewis Carroll. In exceptional circumstances, US case law only recognizes the limited intellectual property rights of invention names or fictional characters. No modern English or Australian case has recognized that titles, phrases, songs and titles should be granted copyright protection.
Publishers who advocate title copyrights believe that the preparation and arrest of headlines involves a high degree of novelty and creativity, while headlines should be eligible for original literary works. To be a literary work, the work must convey happiness or provide fun or guidance. Literary works must also be original. In order to satisfy the test of originality, it must be original, not only from the identifiable author but not from the original, but also the original expression of the author's specific expression of the idea. information. This is because copyright does not mean protecting facts or ideas.
In a Scottish case, the judge briefly discussed whether copyright can be a problem in the headlines of newspapers. from
Shetland Times Ltd v. Wills  FSH 604from
. Regarding whether the title of the newspaper can be a literary work, the judge did not reach a final conclusion, but expressed reservations about the copyright of the title, especially if they only provided a brief description of the subject matter of the item they mentioned. an article.
Newspaper headlines are similar in nature to books or other works and to titles, slogans and phrases that are denied copyright protection. if from
IceTV Pty Ltd v. Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd  HCA 14from
The High Court held that no copyright can exist separately in the name of the program. Courts rely on their short basis [see Francis Day&Hunter Ltd v. Twentieth Century Fox Corp Ltd  AC 112] or newspapers, songs, magazines, books, words and advertising slogans lacking sufficient originality to attract copyright protection.
The title of "Opportunity Knocking" in the game show was denied protection. The name of a song is "Monte Carlo destroys the bank" and a novel "Splendid Misery". The court also refused to copyright copyright names such as Kojak and newspaper titles such as "mirrors." However, these titles and names may be protected by other forms of intellectual property, such as trademark laws or counterfeiting violations.
Although the court has recognized that newspaper headlines may involve creative talent and are smart and fascinating, they merely represent the facts or ideas conveyed.
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v. Reed International Books Australia Pty Ltd Australia's federal court ruled that newspaper headlines are not copyrighted. Reid also collected and copied the Abix subscription service for news headlines and articles appearing in Australian financial reviews. Fairfax claims that by providing a summary of the articles in their service, Reid infringes the copyrights of many works, as headline news for individual literary works, in titles and articles, as "combination works", all articles, The title and signature are “assembled” and copyright is published in every Australian financial review. The court held that the title was too trivial and did not have copyright and did not constitute an important part of the combined work, which constituted an infringement, and the merger did not equal the work of the co-author.
Because of the existence of unfair competition infringements recognized by the United States, US law is somewhat unstable in the right of news gatherers to participate in such activities.
The court held that even if the use is equivalent to infringement, it can justify the defense of fair trade.Natural Insomnia Program - Blue Heron Health News (view mobile),Click here! Breaking News: New Copy Crushes It! -- Article-style (view mobile),Click here!