Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
392 U.S. 390, 88 S. Ct. 2084 (1968)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Fortnightly Corporation (FC) (defendant) operated a community-antenna television (CATV) system in West Virginia. CATV functions by receiving, amplifying, modifying, and converting broadcast television signals received by the community antenna and then transmitting the broadcast signal to customers’ television sets for simultaneous viewing. As a CATV provider, FC did not edit the programs it transmitted and did not broadcast any programming of its own. The area in which FC operated was incredibly hilly, and the terrain prevented residents from receiving most television broadcast signals through ordinary rooftop antennas. Accordingly, most local residents received their television signals through FC’s CATV service. United Artists Television, Inc. (UAT) (plaintiff), which owned copyrights to some of the programs transmitted through FC’s CATV system, sued FC for copyright infringement, arguing that FC was broadcasting, and thereby publicly performing, UAT’s copyrighted works for profit without a license. FC countered, arguing that a CATV transmission did not constitute a public performance. The district court ruled for UAT, holding that FC had infringed on UAT’s exclusive right of public performance. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
