Swatch Group Management Services Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
808 F. Supp. 2d 634 (2011)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Swatch Group Management Services, Ltd. (Swatch) (plaintiff) hosted an audio-only conference call with an invited group of security analysts and several senior Swatch executives. During the call, the Swatch executives answered questions and shared commentary about Swatch’s performance, activities, and opportunities. The conference call was simultaneously recorded. Call participants were notified at the beginning of the call that it was being recorded and that participants were not permitted to record the call. Without Swatch’s consent or knowledge, Bloomberg, L.P. (defendant) tapped into and recorded the conference call. Bloomberg then made a written transcript of the call and released both the transcript and the recorded call to its paid subscribers. Swatch sued Bloomberg for copyright infringement. Between when Swatch commenced the action and when Swatch filed its amended complaint, the United States Copyright Office issued a certificate of registration for Swatch’s authorized recording of the conference call. Bloomberg moved to dismiss, arguing that (1) the conference call was not entitled to copyright protection; and (2) Swatch failed to comply with the pre-fixation notice requirements for simultaneously recorded live transmissions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hellerstein, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 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.