Zacchini v. Scripps Broadcasting Co. 433 US 562 (1977)
Hugo Zacchini was performing his “human cannonball” act at the country fair when he was recorded by a free-lance reporter working for the Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company. The reporter recorded Zacchini’s entire performance after he asked them not to record. Zacchini sued on the grounds of unlawful appropriation of his professional property. He claimed that only his family performed the act and the reporter commercialized his stunt without his consent. The Ohio supreme court ruled in favor of Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company because Zacchini’s performance was a matter of public interest that should be showed to the public. (Justia.com)
Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments allow the Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. to record and broadcast Zacchini’s stunt without his permission? …show more content…
The trial court granted Scripps-Howard summary judgement. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the decision stating that the press does not have a right to show Zacchini’s act without compensating him and that Zacchini’s complain stated a “cause of action” and for “infringement” of copyright. The case was then taken to the Ohio Supreme Court and they ruled in favor of Scripps-Howard claiming that the press is allowed to show Zacchini’s entire act. The Ohio Supreme Court also said that Scripps-Howard may be held liable for using Zacchini’s likeness for appropriation. The Supreme Court in the end ruled that the first and fourteenth amendments did not allow the press to broadcast Zacchini’s act without his consent.