October 3, 2011
Zacchini v. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977)
Posted by Teddie Livingston under Discussions[2] Comments
Situation:
Imagine you are a reporter for a television broadcasting station and in need of a story. You find out at a local fair an entertainer is going to perform an outstanding act that last only 15 seconds. You decide to attend the fair with a small video camera. As your walking around the fair a petitioner noticed the camera and ask you not to record the performance. What do you do when the instructions of the producer of the daily newscast is to record the act? You decide to return to the fair the following day and videotape the entire act. Later that night the videotape clipping airs on the nightly news program. Now the petitioner is taking you to court for commercializing the film of the act without consent.
Legal Background:
Zacchini v. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977) is a situation similar to this when a reporter videotape a “human cannonball” act without consent. The entertainer, Zacchini is suing for damages explaining that the act was invented by his father and performed only by his family, which was commercialized by Scripps without his consent. The complaint stated a cause of action for conversion and for infringement of a common-law copyright. The court favored with Zacchini. All three judges agreed that the First Amendment did not privilege the press to show the entire performance on a news program without compensating petitioner for any financial injury he could prove at trial.
Questions:
What would you do if someone video camera your performance without your consent?
Are there any other cases in which a video aired on the news without consent? If so, what happened?
Did Scripps Howard Broadcasting diminish Zacchini economic value?
2 thoughts on “Zacchini v. Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 4th, 2011 at 10:21 am
If I were a performer, I would be irritated if someone filmed and published my performance without my consent. Performers make their living on interest in their acts and people coming to their shows. I totally understand why Zacchini sued about the airing of his act.
To some extent, I think that Scripps Howard Broadcasting diminished the economic value of Zacchini’s act, but I don’t think the value was totally diminished. Seeing someone fly out of a cannon on television is MUCH different than seeing someone fly out of a cannon in person. Seeing the act on television may have actually garnered interest in people to see the act in person. Others, however, may have been uninterested after seeing the act on TV. I think it’s a situation with no clear answer one way or the other.
October 4th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
If someone videotaped my performance without my consent, I would definitely be annoyed and if it were still the 1970s, I may have grounds on to sue. However, I think that if we want to apply this case to today’s world, we need to look at the bigger picture.
Now there are shows like “America’s Got Talent,” which showcase magic acts and things along the lines of the human cannonball that Zacchini performed. With technology today, there are many videos instantly shared on the web through websites like YouTube. Because there are so many performances and acts shared on the web and on television, I do not think a case like this would come out with the same results today. Most likely, I think the publisher would be in the right, and as Kelesey said, showing a clip of the act online or on TV could support the actor and bring more people to see their performance live.