Easton, Eric B. “Who Owns ‘The First Rough Draft of History?”: Reconsidering Copyright in the News.” Columbia Journal of Law & Arts 27, 4 (2003-2004): 521-563

Can you own the news? Eric B. Easton asserts the moral right and public good of news. Journalism has become increasingly more profit oriented, sometimes at the extent of accuracy. Easton contends that “[j]ournalism as a public service is inexorably being replace by ‘infotainment’ as a commodity” (522). Taking a historical slant, Easton further traces the evolution of the “propertization of news” (523). According to Edwin Baker, copyright law exists to encourage writing. Copyright, though, cannot protect the facts of the news (523). Easton finds the notion that copyright law protects the news troubling; characterizing the “news of the day,” which undeniably would include headlines and leads, as “the first rough draft of history” (524). Headlines, specifically, must be considered factual and completely subject to fair use.

The Internet has had a democratization effect on news. There is more news available and more information than ever before, but there nonetheless is an “absence of a public service ethos in what passes as journalism” (257). In order to rectify this, Easton suggests that all newspaper articles enter the public domain after twenty four hours. The availability in the public domain would assure that all news people involved would be aligned with the public interest and moral rights. Easton points out that technology has created just the opposite effect. Eldred v. Aschcroft and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have allowed newspaper articles to be taken from the public domain in perpetuity (559).

Easton asserts the public’s right to the news and the consequent endorsement of Google News. Easton contends that the public dissemination of the news underscores the public service notion of journalism rather than the profit notion of journalism. While Easton may be correct as to journalism losing its public service underpinnings in the United States, in many countries journalism has not been thought of as having these underpinnings. Thus, Easton’s analysis does not apply to countries outside the United States and does not properly consider the rights the United States Copyright Laws have conferred on journalists. The public service notion of journalism needs to be an element of public policy considered in the assessment of the legality of Google News, but it can not be the only factor considered. The Copyright Laws as they currently exist in relevant countries must be addressed.