Cite as 667 F.Supp. 120 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)
The most important part of the assessment of such a claim is a careful word-for-word comparison of the texts. To make this comparison I have read the Craft-Stravinsky passages cited as infringed not only in the table but together with the surrounding material in the source volume so as to understand the context. I have, likewise, read each cited Kobler passage in its context, and have compared the two word-for-word. I have read the Kobler biography to assess the role and importance of the accused passages and to evaluate the defendants’ claims of fair use.
On a copy of the comparative table, which is filed as an appendix to this opinion, using a letter code with accompanying comments, I have ruled as to each portion of each cited passage whether it represents an instance of infringement.[1]
The propositions that govern a suit of this nature are in the main well established, although their application can be disputed. When a biographer or historian, using a copyrighted work as a source, takes historical information from it, he does not infringe the copyright. The law does not recognize private ownership of historical information, see Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 978 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 841, 101 S.Ct. 121, 66 L.Ed.2d 49 (1980); Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 366 F.2d 303 (2d Cir.1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 7009, 87 S.Ct. 714, 17 L.Ed.2d 546 (1967); 1 M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 2.11[A] (1986) (hereinafter Nimmer ); nor does it enforce efforts to hoard, suppress, sell or license historical fact, or to govern who may and who may not disseminate it. Thus, the copyright law does not protect research. Notwithstanding that enormous effort and great expense may have been required to discover factual information, it may, nonetheless, be freely taken from the original writer’s copyrighted work and republished at will without need of permission or payment. Rosemont Enterprises, 366 F.2d at 309–10. What the copyright law protects is rather the author’s craftsmanship and art in the presentation of the material. It is the manner of expression and not the factual content that enjoys copyright protection. See Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 2224, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985); Financial Information, Inc. v. Moody’s Investors Service, 751 F.2d 501, 505 (2d Cir.1984).
In Firebird there is no doubt a large amount of factual information about Stravinsky that Kobler acquired from the extensive Craft-Stravinsky literature. Such takings, however, do not constitute infringement. Passages that reflect a permissible taking of information, without misappropriation of the craft of authorship (by quotation or paraphrase), are designated in the appendix by the letter A.
Similarly, ideas are not protected by copyright; although the distinction can be difficult to isolate, it is the manner of expressing the idea and not the idea itself that is protected. See Hoehling, 618 F.2d at 978 (interpretation of historical event not copyrightable); Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 389 (2d Cir.1960) (Hand, J.); 1 Nimmer § 203[D]. In the appendix table, B designates a taking of unprotected ideas.
The copyright protection extends only to work created by the original copyright holder. A writer who in an otherwise protected work quotes another person cannot claim protection for the quoted passage. See Suid v. Newsweek Magazine, 503 F.Supp. 146, 148 (D.D.C.1980); Rokeach v. Avco Embassy Pictures Corp., 197 U.S.P.Q. 155, 161 (S.D.N.Y.1978). Kobler’s use of quotes of third persons taken from the Craft-Stravinsky sources are designat-
- ↑ In a few instances where ruling would require a further factual inquiry into the condition or ownership of the copyright in the allegedly protected work (or some other extrinsic fact) and where resolution of the question was unnecessary to the overall decision presented by this motion, I have indicated alternative possible rulings. In a few instances where ruling would involve a doubtful judgment call as to whether, for example, a paraphrasing of protected material was sufficiently close as to represent infringement, I have indicated the tentative quality of the ruling.
