Religious Technology Center v. Lerma
908 F.Supp. 1362, 24 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1115, 37 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1258 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A newspaper's publication of brief excerpts from copyrighted works for the purpose of news reporting constitutes fair use, and information loses its trade secret protection when it is made available in public court records and widely disseminated on the internet.
Facts:
- In a 1991 lawsuit, former Church of Scientology member Steven Fishman filed an affidavit in a public court file.
- Attached to the affidavit were 69 pages of the Religious Technology Center's (RTC) copyrighted and allegedly trade-secret Advanced Technology (AT) documents.
- This court file, including the AT documents, remained unsealed and publicly accessible for approximately 28 months, from April 1993 to August 15, 1995.
- On July 31 and August 1, 1995, another former member, Arnaldo Lerma, obtained a copy of the documents and published them on the Internet.
- Around August 5, 1995, Lerma sent a hard copy of the documents to Richard Leiby, a reporter for The Washington Post.
- After being contacted by RTC, The Post returned Lerma's copy but then obtained its own copy of the documents directly from the clerk's office of the public court file on August 14, 1995.
- On August 19, 1995, The Washington Post published a news article about the controversy, including three brief quotes totaling 46 words from the AT documents.
Procedural Posture:
- Religious Technology Center (RTC) sued Arnaldo Lerma in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for posting copyrighted and trade secret documents on the internet.
- The district court issued a Temporary Restraining Order against Lerma and a warrant to seize his computer equipment.
- RTC filed an amended complaint, adding The Washington Post and its reporters Marc Fisher and Richard Leiby as defendants, alleging copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets.
- The Washington Post defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asking the court to dismiss the claims against them.
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 a newspaper's publication of brief quotes from copyrighted religious materials, which it obtained from a public court file, constitute fair use when the purpose is news reporting about a public controversy involving those materials?
Opinions:
Majority - Brinkema, J.
Yes, the newspaper's publication constitutes fair use. The court's finding is based on an analysis of the four statutory factors for fair use. First, the purpose and character of the use was for news gathering and reporting on a newsworthy topic, not for commercial exploitation. Second, the nature of the copyrighted work was informational rather than creative, which permits a broader scope of fair use. Third, the amount and substantiality of the portion used was minimal—only 46 words were quoted to illustrate the documents' obtuse language, not to reveal their core substance. Fourth, the publication had no negative effect on the potential market for the copyrighted work, as no one would substitute the brief news quotes for the full religious training. The court also held that the documents were no longer trade secrets because they had been in the public domain for 28 months in a court file and were posted on the internet, and The Post acquired them through proper, not unlawful, means.
Analysis:
This case is a significant early ruling on the intersection of intellectual property law and the internet. It establishes that placing documents in a public court file or posting them on the internet can destroy their status as trade secrets, making them part of the public domain. The decision strongly affirms the fair use defense for news reporting, clarifying that quoting minimal, illustrative portions of a copyrighted work to report on a matter of public interest is protected. This precedent provides a crucial safeguard for journalism, particularly when reporting on secretive organizations that use copyright and trade secret law to suppress criticism.
