Zacchini vs. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company June 28 1977

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16238771870259020023&q=zacchini+v.+scripps-howard+broadcasting&hl=en&as_sdt=2,36&as_vis=1

Facts of Case: The plaintiff, Hugo Zacchini, is an entertainer that performs a human cannonball act where he is shot from a cannon and into a net about 200 feet away.  Each performance is about fifteen seconds long.  In August and September of 1972, Zacchini was scheduled to perform at the Geauga County Fair in Burton, Ohio.  People that attended the fair were not charged a fee to see the act.   On August 30 a freelance reporter from Scripps Howard Broadcasting attended the fair.  He was carrying a camera and was asked not to film the performance.  He did not film it that day, but was asked by his producer to film it.  The next day he filmed the entire performance.  The act was about fifteen seconds long and was aired on 11 o’clock news program that night, along with complimenting commentary. Zacchini then wanted to sue for damages explaining that the act was invented by his father and performed only by his family and that Scripps Howard showed and commercialized his act without his consent.  He furthered that the conduct was “unlawful appropriation of plaintiff’s professional property.”   The plaintiff wanted a summary judgement which was granted by the trial court.  The Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed it.  The majority said that the petitioner’s complaint stated a cause of action for conversion and for infringement of a common-law copyright.  All three of the judges agreed that the First Amendment did not give the Scripps Howard Broadcasting the right to show the entire performance on a news program without compensating Zacchini for any financial injury he could prove at trial.

Legal Issue:
Do the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment privilege defendant to broadcast  the plaintiff’s entire stunt without compensation?

Decision:
The court overturned a lower court decision.  Scripps Howard Broadcasting’s First Amendment rights were not more important that protecting Hugo Zacchini’s financial interest in his performance.

Analysis:
Because the Ohio Supreme Court based its decision on the scope of protection offered to the press by the Federal constitution no acceptale and independent state ground existed for the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision, and the U.S. Supreme Court therefore had jurisdiction. Justice White also wrote that while a state government may pass a law concealing the press from liability for broadcasting performers’ acts, the first amendment and Fourteenth Amendment do not require states to do so.

Questions:

1. What is the significance of this case?

2.  How does this case compare to Time Inc vs. Hill ?

3.  How would a similar case be ruled today?