71): "* * * Regarding the news, therefore, as but the material out of which both parties are seeking to make profits at the same time and in the same field, we hardly can fail to recognize that for this purpose, and as between them, it must be regarded as quasi property, irrespective of the rights of either as against the public.
"In order to sustain the jurisdiction of equity over the controversy, we need not affirm any general and absolute property in the news as such. The rule that a court of equity concerns itself only in the protection of property rights treats any civil right of a pecuniary nature as a property right ( In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200, 210, 8 S. Ct. 482, 31 L.E.d 402; In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 593, 15 S. Ct. 900, 39 L. Ed. 1092); and the right to acquire property by honest labor or the conduct of a lawful business is as much entitled to protection as the right to guard property already acquired. * * *"
And again at pages 239, 240, 39 S. Ct. at page 72: "* * * The right of the purchaser of a single newspaper to spread knowledge of its contents gratuitously, for any legitimate purpose not unreasonably interfering with the complainant's right to make merchandise of it, may be admitted; but to transmit that news for commercial use, in competition with complainant -- which is what defendant has done and seeks to justify -- is a very different matter. * * *"
In Twentieth Century Sporting Club, Inc., v. Transradio Press Service, Inc., 165 Misc. 71, 300 N.Y.S. 159, the New York Supreme Court applied the principles of unfair competition to a broadcast of the Louis-Farr fight and entered an injunction.
In Associated Press v. KVOS, Inc., 9 Cir., 80 F.2d 575, a preliminary injunction was granted to restrain Station KVOS from appropriating and broadcasting news gathered by the Associated Press on the ground that the broadcasting station was in competition with the Associated Press in the business of publication of news for profit.
Defendant contends it is not unfairly competing with any of the plaintiffs because it obtains no compensation from a sponsor or otherwise from its baseball broadcasts. It concedes, however, the KQV seeks by its broadcast of news of baseball games to cultivate the good will of the public for its radio station. The fact that no revenue is obtained directly from the broadcast is not controlling, as these broadcasts are undoubtedly designed to aid in obtaining advertising business. See Waring v. WDAS Station, Inc., 327 Pa. 433, 435, 194 A. 631; Witmark & Sons v. Bamberger & Co., D.C., 291 F. 776; Remick & Co. v. Automobile Accessories Co., 6 Cir., 5 F.2d 411, 40 A.L.R. 1511; Irving Berlin, Inc., v. Daigle, 5 Cir., 31 F.2d 832; Herbert v. Shanley Co., 242 U.S. 591, 37 S. Ct. 232, 61 L. Ed. 511; Associated Press v. KVOS, Inc., 80 F.2d 575.
Defendant seeks to justify its action on the ground that the information it receives from its observers stationed on its own property without trespassing on plaintiffs' property, may be lawfully broadcast by it. We cannot follow defendant's counsel in this contention for the reasons above stated. The cases cited by them we have carefully studied and are unable to accept as authority. In the Australian case, Victoria Park Racing, etc., v. Taylor, 37 New South Wales 322, where the information broadcast was obtained from a tower adjoining a race track, the court refused an injunction, because there was neither a trespass on plaintiff's race track, or a nuisance created by defendant.
The doctrine of unfair competition is not recognized under the English Common Law. Therefore this decision is not an authority.
In the case of Sports and General Press Agency v. Our Dogs Publishing Company,  2 K.B. 880, which involved the taking of photographs from a point outside the dog-shows grounds, is likewise a case for the application of English law. The question of unfair competition was not considered at all, and could not be recognized under the English law.
The case of National Exhibition Company v. Tele-Flash, Inc. (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1936) 24 F.Supp. 488, presents a case somewhat similar to the case at bar. However, we are unable to follow the court's ruling, because we do not believe that the District Judge correctly interpreted the law as to unfair competition as applicable to cases of this kind.
Conclusions of Law.
1. This Court has jurisdiction of this cause by reason of diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy.
2. The right, title and interest in and to the baseball games played within the parks of members of the National League, including Pittsburgh, including the property right in, and the sole right of, disseminating or publishing or selling, or licensing the right to disseminate, news, reports, descriptions, or accounts of games played in such parks, during the playing thereof, is vested exclusively in such members.
3. The actions and threatened actions of the defendant constitute a direct and irreparable interference with, and an appropriation of, the plaintiffs' normal and legitimate business; and said action is calculated to, and does, result in the unjust enrichment of the defendant at the expense of the plaintiffs and each of them.
4. The defendant's unauthorized broadcasts of information concerning games played by the Pittsburgh team constitute unfair competition with the plaintiffs and each of them.
5. The defendant wrongfully deprives the plaintiffs and each of them of the just benefits of their labors and expenditures in respect of the baseball games and the public dissemination of news thereof as alleged in the complaint; and the action, threatened action and practice of the defendant constitute a fraud on the public.
6. The actions and threatened actions of the defendant herein alleged constitute a wrongful interference with the contractual rights and obligations of the parties.
7. The defendant's action as herein described constitutes a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.
8. The plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
9. The plaintiffs are entitled to and are hereby granted a preliminary injunction.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.