How are news articles copyrighted? Or how are the claims of copyright infringement made?

Question

A news article (assuming no photo is used) is the description of an event. News agencies quickly send their journalists/reporters to the scene to write about the event.

If a news outlet re-writes the story based on what was reported by others, how can the original journalists claim copyright infringement?

In claims of copyright infringement of writing materials, the topic is usually the basis of the claim. For example, it is easy to claim that a novel has been re-written by someone else based on the story and characters. In the case of news articles, everyone can claim had the same observation as long as the wording is not similar.

Answer 1

Copyright protects an arrangement of words, a "work", not the ideas behind that work. Even characters, while potentially protected by trademark, are not covered by copyright (though in a commercially published fiction of any consequence, especially one of a well-selling series or franchise, it's pretty likely the characters and some catch phrases will be trademarked -- don't try writing your own story around Mickey and Minny Mouse, or The Avengers!).

That said, news is about sources, as much as events; if your source is an article in another news outlet, you're writing at second (or worse) hand, and if you do this at all regularly, word will get out and consumers will buy from the agency with the originals, rather than the copies. New is also about timeliness, and if you write copies, they necessarily come out after the work you copied -- you got scooped!

In general, reputable news agencies will discipline employees who report this way -- and they'll catch them at it via fact-checking (a story needs to be verified against a reliable source before a major outlet will publish it).

Answer 2

Copyright attaches to a work by the act of publication, or sharing the work for the purpose of publication.

A newspapers/websites own their original stories. Those stories that they publish gain copyright protection.

If an organization reproduces other source articles verbatim and without permission, then they are at risk for legal action. That legal action is costly to pursue therefore it isn't often sought by newspapers/websites who believe their copyrights have been trespassed. That fact doesn't prevent everyone from doing this as it is a common practice for some web sites.

If the original story is quoted or summarized, and not reproduced verbatim, then it would be generally covered under "Fair Use" doctrine. But, fair use, was with copyright law, is not a precisely defining property. Many court cases have been unexpectedly won or loss based on the court's interpretation of the exact details of the case pertaining to fair use.

The definition of Fair Use and the letter of the law are one thing. The only true determinant are the decisions of courts in copyright cases. And courts are all over the map, making black and white declarations of what is and what isn't a violation a difficult subject in certain cases.

Answer 3

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is copyright is about intellectual property. I created the idea, therefore I own it.

If a news outlet re-writes a story, they weren't there. They don't own the intellectual property. Somebody else does.

Why should I benefit from somebody else's work? If I re-write a novel using the same characters and story, I am stealing another person's ideas.