Select Page

Don't Tread On My Site

No Temporary Restraining Order Against Airing of Discovery’s The Lost Lincoln

Load WordPress Sites in as fast as 37ms!

The opinion is Spolar v. Discovery Communications, LLC, handed down today by Judge Stephen V. Wilson:

Discovery describes the documentary, entitled The Lost Lincoln, as “follow[ing] professional authenticator Dr. Whitny Braun as she leads an investigation to determine
whether or not a newly discovered photograph could be the 131st and final image of the president following his fatal shooting in 1865.”

Plaintiffs own the photograph, and claim that Dr. Braun’s work violated his nondisclosure agreement with them. The court notes, though, that Discovery has no contract with the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs’ research into the photograph isn’t the sort of trade secret whose disclosure can be enjoined in this kind of situation.

The court’s decision doesn’t rest primarily on First Amendment doctrine:

Whether and how the prior restraint doctrine applies to protectible trade secrets—especially those covering matters of public concern—remains murky. In CBS, Inc. v. Davis, Justice Blackmun granted a television network’s application to stay an injunction prohibiting a broadcast that would allegedly disclose a meat packing company’s trade secrets. 510 U.S. at 1318; see also Ford Motor Co. v. Lane, 67 F. Supp. 2d 745, 753 (E.D. Mich. 1999). However, it is well recognized that the prior restraint doctrine is routinely relaxed in the field of intellectual property. See Smolla & Nimmer on Freedom of Speech § 15:60 (“[C]ourts have often exhibited a blind spot for normal prior restraint and preliminary injunction standards when it comes to enforcement of copyright interests.”); see, e.g., A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1028 (9th Cir. 2001); Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1403 n.11 (9th Cir. 1997).

But the court recognizes that its analysis of the factors used to decide whether to grant an injunction should be “informed by an extra layer of First Amendment scrutiny,” and concludes that ultimately the plaintiffs’ trade secret claim appears too weak to warrant a temporary restraining order.


This post has been republished with permission from a publicly-available RSS feed found on Reason. The views expressed by the original author(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of The Libertarian Hub, its owners or administrators. Any images included in the original article belong to and are the sole responsibility of the original author/website. The Libertarian Hub makes no claims of ownership of any imported photos/images and shall not be held liable for any unintended copyright infringement. Submit a DCMA takedown request.

-> Click Here to Read the Original Article <-

Advertise on Libertarian Hub

About The Author

Eugene Volokh

Founded in 1968, Reason is the magazine of free minds and free markets. We produce hard-hitting independent journalism on civil liberties, politics, technology, culture, policy, and commerce. Reason exists outside of the left/right echo chamber. Our goal is to deliver fresh, unbiased information and insights to our readers, viewers, and listeners every day. Visit https://reason.com

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Welcome

Bringing together a variety of news and information from some of today’s most important libertarian thought leaders. All feeds are checked and refreshed every hour and pages auto-refresh every 15 minutes. External images are deleted after 30 days.

Time since last refresh: 0 second

Publish Your Own Article

Follow The Libertarian Hub