HomeCase briefs › Property

Nash v. CBS

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990 · Property
PropertyCopyrightIdea-expression distinctionHistorical factscopyrightnonfictionhistorical factsidea-expression

Facts

Nash wrote several books asserting that John Dillinger did not die at the Biograph Theater and instead survived, relocated to the west coast, and lived for decades. CBS later aired The Dillinger Print, an episode of Simon and Simon built around the idea that Dillinger may have survived and incorporating several factual details Nash had used, including discrepancies between Dillinger's features and the corpse and the notion of planted fingerprints. The episode did not copy Nash's language, narration, or arrangement of material, but used its own fictional detective plot and presentation. Nash claimed the episode infringed his copyrights in the books.

Issue

Does a television program infringe the copyright in nonfiction books by copying the author's historical theory and supporting factual assertions, while not copying the author's actual words, arrangement, or presentation? More specifically, are Nash's asserted facts and analysis about Dillinger's survival protected expression or unprotectable historical ideas and facts under copyright law?

Rule

Copyright in nonfiction works does not extend to historical facts, ideas, discoveries, or theories, regardless of the form in which they are described. An author of a historical or purportedly factual work has rights only in expression, such as the author's words and original arrangement or presentation of facts, not in the underlying truth or asserted facts themselves. Courts must avoid both extremes of abstraction by neither granting control over all similar treatments of history nor allowing wholesale appropriation of protected expression.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Lena Ortiz published a nonfiction book in Boston arguing that a notorious 1920s labor leader secretly fled to Argentina after an apparent courthouse shooting. A streaming studio later released a drama set in Miami in which investigators pursue the same survival theory and use several of the same alleged clues from Lena's research, but none of Lena's wording, chapter structure, or narrative presentation.

If Lena sues for copyright infringement, which is the strongest argument for the studio?

Explanation. The governing rule is that copyright in a nonfiction work does not extend to historical facts, discoveries, ideas, or theories, even if the author was the first to advance them. Protection covers only expression, such as the author's words and original arrangement or presentation. Here, the studio used the same purported historical thesis and supporting details but not Lena's wording or presentation, so the strongest defense is that it copied only unprotectable matter.