Search results for: swatch bloomberg

Swatch organized a conference call for several hundred stock analysts. Bloomberg recorded the call without authorization and made it available to its subscribers. Swatch sued on copyright. At the District Court level, Bloomberg prevailed on (the Court’s sua sponte request for) summary judgment on fair use. Heavy emphasis on: (1) news reporting purpose; (2) thin copyright; and (3) no discernible effect on the ‘market’ for the work.

Second Circuit affirms. Interesting discussion regarding the news importance not only of the actual words spoken by the Swatch representatives on the call, but their vocal characteristics as well (see discussion starting on page 27).

Question: Why does Swatch seek to prohibit Bloomberg’s recording its conference calls?

Background here.

swatch v bloomberg 2d cirswatch v bloomberg 2d cir

var docstoc_docid=’166499180′; var docstoc_title=’swatch v bloomberg 2d cir’; var docstoc_urltitle=’swatch v bloomberg 2d cir’;

The Bloomberg news service copied a transcript of a conference call between Swatch and stock analysts. Swatch claimed copyright. Held: fair use (relying heavily on (1) news reporting purpose; (2) thin copyright; and (3) no discernable effect on the ‘market’ for the work. Background here.

decision swatch bloomberg fair use
var docstoc_docid=”121267077″;var docstoc_title=”decision swatch bloomberg fair use”;var docstoc_urltitle=”decision swatch bloomberg fair use”;

From the complaint: Plaintiff Swatch, a Swiss publicly traded company, hosted a conference call for securities analysts. The call was transmitted and recorded by a conference call service. Participants were instructed not to record the call for publication or broadcast. Bloomberg News was not invited or authorized to participate in the call. Bloomberg recorded the call, created a transcript which it made available to others.

Bloomberg moves to dismiss. Denied. If a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission, the Copyright Act creates the fiction that the simultaneous fixation occurs before the transmission, for purposes of an infringement claim. (page 4). Also, the conference call satisfied the requirement of originality.

Swatch v Bloomberg(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

From the complaint: Plaintiff Swatch, a Swiss publicly traded company, hosted a conference call for securities analysts. The call was transmitted and recorded by a conference call service. Participants were instructed not to record the call for publication or broadcast. Bloomberg News was not invited or authorized to participate in the call. Bloomberg recorded the call, created a transcript which it made available to others.

Things to ponder: the Work is defined as the sound recording of the call.  What did Bloomberg (allegedly) copy and when did it copy it?

Also note: The Work was allegedly created outside the U.S.

Complaint Swatch