00-3286 Harbor Motor Company, Inc. v. Arnell Chevrolet-Geo, Inc., et al.

Listen to this article

“We conclude that the district court’s decision to grant the Post-Tribune’s motion for judgment as a matter of law was in error. The court in granting the Post-Tribune’s motion indicated only that it did not believe that liability could be imposed on the Post-Tribune consistent with the First Amendment because ‘there are some values involved that I think are implicit in the way in which newspapers should or are supposed to act.’ … Nowhere in its ruling did the district court articulate a basis, grounded in the Copyright Act, for granting the Post- Tribune’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. It simply noted that it was ‘excusing the newspaper on different grounds than the validity of the copyright.’

“In our view, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Harbor, could support a verdict in its favor on direct infringement grounds. First, the jury verdict against Arnell demonstrates (1) that Harbor owned a valid copyright in the advertisement and (2) that Arnell infringed Harbor’s copyright. Harbor asserts the same ownership rights in the copyright against the Post-Tribune and appears to have an even stronger case because it was the newspaper that copied the advertisement. The Post-Tribune’s own ad representative and graphic designer created the offending ad, and the paper published it. Because enough evidence exists to sustain a verdict for Harbor, we conclude that the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law to the Post-Tribune on a direct infringement claim.”

Reversed and remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Sharp, J., Ripple, J.