Gene Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 11135, 650 F.2d 1365, 7 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1785 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Copyright protection extends only to an author's original expression of facts, not to the facts themselves or the labor and research involved in uncovering those facts.
Facts:
- In December 1968, the daughter of a wealthy Florida developer was kidnapped and buried alive in a capsule for five days before being rescued.
- Gene Miller, a reporter for the Miami Herald, covered the sensational crime.
- Miller later collaborated with the victim to write a book about the kidnapping, titled '83 Hours Till Dawn,' which was published and copyrighted in 1971.
- In 1972, a producer for Universal City Studios read a condensed version of the book and gave a copy to a scriptwriter to begin work on a screenplay.
- Universal City Studios entered into negotiations to purchase the movie rights to Miller's book, but the parties never reached an agreement.
- Despite the failed negotiations, the scriptwriter, who had initially been given the book, completed a screenplay.
- Universal City Studios then produced and aired a made-for-television movie based on the kidnapping, titled 'The Longest Night.'
Procedural Posture:
- Gene Miller sued Universal City Studios, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging copyright infringement.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The district court, at Miller's request, instructed the jury that an author's research is copyrightable.
- The jury found in favor of Miller, concluding that the movie infringed his copyright.
- The jury awarded Miller over $200,000 in damages and profits.
- Universal City Studios, Inc. (appellant) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the jury instruction among other issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does copyright protection for a factual work extend to the author's underlying research, making the research itself copyrightable?
Opinions:
Majority - Roney, Circuit Judge
No, copyright protection for a factual work does not extend to the author's underlying research. The core of copyright law is originality, and facts do not originate with an author who discovers them; they are part of the public domain available to everyone. To hold that research is copyrightable would be functionally equivalent to holding that the facts discovered through that research are copyrightable, which is a long-rejected principle. The court explicitly rejects the 'sweat of the brow' doctrine, which would reward the labor of research, in favor of the Second Circuit's reasoning in 'Rosemont' and 'Hoehling.' This approach properly balances the author's right to their expression with the public's need for unrestrained access to information, allowing subsequent authors to build upon prior factual discoveries without duplicating research efforts. Because the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury that 'research is copyrightable,' and this erroneous theory was central to the plaintiff's case, the verdict must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision strongly rejects the 'sweat of the brow' doctrine, which suggests that an author's labor in collecting facts should be protectable. By holding that research is not copyrightable, the court reinforces the fundamental fact/expression dichotomy in copyright law. This ruling aligns the Fifth Circuit with the influential Second Circuit, solidifying a standard that prevents authors of factual works from monopolizing historical events or data. The case clarifies that while the specific narrative and literary expression are protected, the underlying facts and the effort to uncover them are free for all to use, promoting the creation of new works based on shared historical and factual knowledge.
