This article discusses the copyright laws of the news headlines and explores case law regarding whether media publishers can protect their headlines as original literary works.

Media companies have tried to claim copyright protection of newspaper headlines copy on the internet. News publishers have argued that news headlines qualified for copyright protection as original literary works under copyright law. As early as 1918 in the case of International News Service v Associated Press 248 US 215 in the US Supreme Court has held that it can not copyright facts or ‘ news of the day .’

However, unlike in Commonwealth countries like Australia where there is no recognition of the tort of misappropriation United States recognizes the doctrine of misappropriation of hot news. This tort has made media publishers and other organizations to gain the right to protect the other party to disclose certain ‘facts’ or data, including news and other time-sensitive information in a specific window of time to make the organization has invested in acquisition data can recoup their investment. There are a number of criteria that must be satisfied to overcome the action of hot news misappropriation

As stated above, the Commonwealth Court rejected tort of unfair competition framework in the US and have decided such cases solely on the basis of copyright law. Courts have been reluctant to provide literary copyright titles, characters and news headlines. However publishers newspaper has only recently brought legal action in Australia for copyright infringement in their headlines and parts of articles on the basis of reproduction or acquisition of titles equivalent to theft content. Newspaper publishers have tried to get copyright protection in their headlines as a single original literary works under copyright law.

For copyright protection available literary required and not every piece of writing or print mood literary works within the meaning of the Act.

usually single words, short sentences, advertising slogans, letters and news headlines have been denied copyright protection even where they have been invented or newly coined by the author. Courts have given different reasons for denying copyright protection to such works. One reason offered by the courts is to ‘work’ are too trivial or not significant enough to qualify for copyright protection. In the case of Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants Ltd (1981) 3 All ER 241 leading Enska example where copyright rejected the word Exxon original literary works.

Exxon argued enjoyed copyright to the word Exxon have invested time and energy to hire linguists to find words, contending that the actual size of a literary work does not rule out the acquisition of copyright protection. The Court found that the work was too short or the slightest regularity of the copyright work.

The Court also stated that although the word was found and original it had no special meaning, comparing it with the word “ Jabberwocky ‘is used for the famous poem by Lewis Carroll. US case law has only recognized a limited intellectual property rights the invented names or fictional characters in exceptional circumstances. There is no modern English or Australian case that has recognized the titles, phrases, song and book titles should be granted copyright protection.

Publishers asserting copyright in the title contend building and capturing headlines involving the great innovation and creativity, and the headings should be considered as original literary works. To be literary works have to say pleasure or material satisfaction or teaching. A literary work must also be original, and to satisfy the test of originality it must be original not only in the sense that originated from an identifiable author rather than copy, but also original in a particular form of expression that the author conveys ideas or information. This is because copyright is not intended to protect the facts or ideas.

The question of whether copyright can subsist in the newspaper headlines was discussed briefly by the judge in the case called Scottish Shetland Times Ltd V Wills [1997] FSH 604 . The judge did not make a final decision on whether the newspaper headline can be literary, but expressed doubts about granting copyright to headlines, especially since they only provide a brief indication of the subject of the items they refer to in the article.

Newspaper headlines are similar in nature titles of books or other works and titles, slogans and short phrases that have been denied copyright protection. In the case of IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 14 , the High Court held that no copyright can subsist in the program title one. The courts have based the reasons for denying copyright protection to such works, both of the grounds that they are too short (see Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Corp. Ltd. (194) AC 112) or alternatively the titles of newspapers, songs, magazines books, single words and advertising slogans enough originality to attract copyright protection.

The title ‘Opportunity knocks’ for quiz was refused protection, which was titled “The Man who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo” for the song and “Splendid Misery” novel. The courts have also denied copyright protection for invented names like Kojak and newspaper titles as “The Mirror”. Such naming can still be protected by other forms of intellectual property such as trademark law or tort passing away.

However, courts have recognized that the newspaper headlines may include creative flair and be clever and attractive but represent little more than the fact or idea transmitted.

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Reed International Books Australia Pty Ltd Federal Court of Australia has ruled that the newspaper headlines are not capable of copyright protection. Reed and collected and copied stories and articles appearing in The Australian Financial Review on it Abix subscription service. Fairfax alleged to produce a compendium of articles in their services Reed had infringed copyright in the number of pieces, be headlines special literature and in the headline and the article together, the “combination of work”, all articles, headlines and bylines as “summary” and also published version copyright in each of The Australian Financial Review. The court found that the title was too trivial to be copyrightable and only a substantial part of the combined work so unless the violation and assembly work only to the work of the author.

law in the US is somewhat unhappy in connection with rights news aggreggators participate in such activities because of the existence of a tort of unfair competition, which is recognized in some US States.

The Court even had use amounted to violation had been excused by the defense fair dealing.