The news scimitar. (Memphis, Tenn.) 1907-1926, 1918-12-30

Wnteh complainant seeks an Injunction
are not different from the practice at
IInuJed 20 complainant. Of utilizing de-
Iendants news published by its sub
scrloers. At this point it becomes
necessary to consider a distinction that
Is drawn by complainant. and. as We
Inaerstand 1t, was recognized by de-
defendant also in the submission OF
proofs in the district court, between
two kinds Of use that may be made by
one news agency OF news taken from
me bulletins and newspapers Of the
otheT. The first Is the bodily appro-
prlatlOn Of a statement OF facts or d
news article, with or without rewriting,
but without Independent Investigation
or other expense. This form Of pirating
was found by both courts to have been
pursued by defendant Systematically
with respect to complainant's news,
ana against Ii the circuit court of ap-
paels granted an injunction, This prac-
lice complainant denies having pursued,
and the denial was sustained by the
finding. Of the district court, II is not
contended by defendant that the find
ing can be set aside, upon the proofs
as they now stand. The other use is
TO take the news OF a rival agency as
a tip to be Investigated and if verified
by. Independent investigation the news
value thus gathered is sold. This prac-
tice complainant admits that it has pur-
sued and stiil is willing that defendant
shall employ.
Both courts held that complainant
could not be debarred on the ground OF
unclean hands upon the score OF pirat-
ing defendants news, because not
shown to be guilty of sa%ncttoning this
practice.
las to securing tips from a compel
ing news agency, the district court (240
TED. rep. 1871, $3.50, while not sanction
ing the practice, fOund that both par
ties had adopted it in accordance with
common business usage, in the belief
hat their conduct was technically law
ful, and hence did not find In il any
sufficient grounds for attributing UNI
clean hands to complainant, The cir
cult court of appeals GAS fed. rep. 247),
found that the tip habit, though dis
couraged by complainant, was incur
ably journalistic and that there was
no difficulty in discriminating between
the utilization Of tips and the bodily
appropriation of another's labor in &C
cumulating and stating information
Draw Distinction.
I'VE are inclined to think a distinc-
ton may be Drawn between the utili-
zation of tips and the bodily apprOpri-
alton OF news matter, either in its orig
inal form Of after rewriting and with
out Independent investigation and VeTi-
iCation; whatever may appear at the
INA utdTtIiE, lne DTOOiS DIS lutN HOW
stand recognize such a distinction; both
parties avowedly recognize the prac-
tice OF taking tips. and neither party
alleges IL to be unlawful or to amount
TO unfair competition in business. In
n lire OF English cases a somewhat
analogous practice has been held not
to amount to an infringement of the
copyright of a directory or other book
containing compiled information. In
Kelly Morris, l.. r. | en-. 697, 701. 702,
vice chancellor Sir William Page Wood
tafterward Lord Hatherlyl, dealing with
such a case, said that defendant was
not entitled to take one word of the
information previously published with
out Independently working out the mat
ter for himself, so as to arrive at the
same result from the same cornmo
sources Of information, and the only
use that he can legitimat,ly make Of
a previous publication Is to verify his
own calculations and results when OBJ
tanned This was followed by Vice
Chancellor Giffarh in Morris V. Ash
bee, L. r. 7 eq, "a, where he said; In
a case such as this no une has a right
to take the results Of the labor and
expense incurred by another for the
purposes Of a rival publication, and
thereby save himself the expense and
labor Of working out and arriving at
these results by some Independent road.
A simi8r view was adopted by Lord
Chancellor Natherly AMI the former
yiCe-chancellor. then Gifiard, L. j., in
Pike Y. Nichoias, l.. r. 5 Oh. App.
Cas-, PSI. and shortly afterward by the
later Judge in Morris v. Wright, l.. r.
) Oh. ADD. Cas-, 279, 2S7, where he said,
commenting upon PIKE y, Nicholas. 1t
vas a perfectly legitimate course for
the defendant to refer to the plaintiffs
book, and If, taking tnat book as his
guide, he went To the original authori-