Los Angeles News Service v. Kcal-Tv Channel 9

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that there was \no dispute that KCAL used the heart of the tape\
• stating that there was “no dispute that KCAL used the heart of the tape”
• explaining that infringement was not justified where “there [was] no evidence that alternatives were not available (albeit from a less desirable vantage point)”
• “To the extent that KCAL ran the tape as a news story, this would weigh in its favor.”
• “Although KCAL apparently ran its own voice-over, it does not appear to have added anything new or transformative.”
• “ ‘[T] he propriety of the defendant’s conduct’ is relevant to the character of the use at least to the extent that it may knowingly have exploited a purloined work for free that could have been obtained for a fee.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).