Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc.
366 F.2d 303 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A work's commercial purpose and popular style do not preclude the application of the fair use doctrine. When a work, such as a biography of a public figure, serves the public interest in the dissemination of information, that interest is a critical factor and may subordinate the copyright holder's financial interests.
Facts:
- In 1954, Look Magazine published a series of copyrighted articles titled 'The Howard Hughes Story'.
- In 1962, Random House, Inc. began preparing a biography of Howard Hughes, a public figure known for his achievements and desire for privacy.
- Author John Keats was hired by Random House in 1964 to complete the biography, using a prior manuscript and other sources, including the 1954 Look articles.
- Howard Hughes learned of the forthcoming biography and his attorney warned Random House that Hughes was opposed to it and 'would make trouble'.
- In September 1965, Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. was formed by Hughes's attorney and two officers of a Hughes-owned company.
- On May 20, 1966, days before the biography's publication, Rosemont Enterprises acquired the copyrights to the 1954 Look articles from their publisher.
Procedural Posture:
- Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. sued Random House, Inc. in the United States District Court for copyright infringement.
- Rosemont filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain the sale, publication, distribution, and advertisement of the biography.
- The district court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Random House, Inc., the defendant, appealed the district court's granting of the injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 the use of copyrighted magazine articles in a commercially distributed biography of a public figure constitute a fair use, thereby making a preliminary injunction against the biography's publication improper?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, J.
Yes. The use of the copyrighted articles constitutes a fair use, making the preliminary injunction improper because a work's commercial purpose or popular style does not negate the fair use defense when the work serves a significant public interest. The district court erred by confining the fair use privilege to scholarly works and excluding those designed for the popular market. Biographies of public figures serve the public interest in the free dissemination of information, a purpose that outweighs the copyright holder's interest in a maximum financial return, especially when the copied material is insubstantial relative to the new work. Furthermore, a preliminary injunction is a drastic remedy that is particularly disfavored when it would suppress a book and deprive the public of information about a newsworthy individual.
Concurring - Lumbard, C.J.
Yes. The preliminary injunction should have been denied because the plaintiff came to court with 'unclean hands.' The evidence strongly suggests that Rosemont Enterprises was an instrument of Howard Hughes, created for the sole purpose of suppressing the Random House biography. Acquiring a copyright for the purpose of restraining others from publishing biographical material about a public figure is contrary to the public interest and the spirit of the First Amendment. The copyright laws were designed to protect an author's expression, not to be used as a tool of censorship to prevent the public from being informed about matters of general interest.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadened the scope of the fair use doctrine by rejecting the premise that a commercial motive automatically defeats a fair use claim. It established that the public interest in receiving information about public figures is a powerful factor in the fair use analysis, capable of outweighing the copyright holder's economic interests. The decision provides crucial protection for biographers and journalists, ensuring they can draw upon prior works to create new ones for a popular audience. It also signaled judicial skepticism toward using copyright law as a tool for censorship rather than for its intended purpose of promoting creativity.
Unlock the full brief for Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc.