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