Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.
| Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 25, 1977 Decided June 28, 1977 |
|
| Full case name | Hugo Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company |
| Citations | 433 U.S. 562 (more)
97 S. Ct. 2849; 53 L. Ed. 2d 965; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 145; 205 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 741; 40 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1485; 5 Ohio Op. 3d 215; 2 Media L. Rep. 2089
|
| Prior history | Ohio Supreme Court, 47 Ohio St.2d 224, 351 N.E.2d 454 (1976), reversed; cert. granted 429 U.S. 1037 (1977) |
| Holding | |
| The First and Fourteenth Amendments do not immunize the news media from civil liability when they broadcast a performer's entire act without his consent, nor does the Constitution prevent a State from requiring broadcasters to compensate performers. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Rehnquist |
| Dissent | Powell, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const., Amends. I and XIV | |
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977), was an important U.S. Supreme Court case concerning rights of publicity. The Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not immunize the news media from civil liability when they broadcast a performer's entire act without his consent, and the Constitution does not prevent a state from requiring broadcasters to compensate performers. It was the first time (and so far the only time) the Supreme Court heard a case on rights of publicity.
Petitioner Hugo Zacchini had a human cannonball act which he performed at various venues. During August 1972, he was performing his act at the Geauga County Fair in Burton, Ohio. On August 30, Zacchini noticed a freelance reporter from Scripps-Howard Broadcasting (which operated WEWS-TV in Cleveland) who had brought a movie camera into the fair. Zacchini asked the reporter not to film his act. The reporter did not film Zacchini's act that day, but did film him the next day. The footage taken by the reporter was about fifteen seconds long, sufficient to capture Zacchini's entire act.
Zacchini filed suit against Scripps-Howard in Ohio state court, alleging that the local reporter "showed and commercialized the film of his act without his consent," and that such conduct was an "unlawful appropriation of plaintiff's professional property." The trial court granted the defendant summary judgment. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Zacchini's complaint stated a cause of action for conversion and for infringement of a common law copyright, and that the press was not privileged to show Zacchini's entire act on television without compensating him.
...
Wikipedia