Tveyes

Case 1:13-cv-05315-AKH Document 51 Filed 09/02/14 Page 1 of 76
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC, Case No. 13-CV-5315 (AKH)

Plaintiff,
- against -
TVEYES, INC.,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT TVEYES’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW

IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................... 1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 3
A. Overview of TVEyes’ Service ................................................................... 3
B. TVEyes’ Clients ........................................................................................ 4
C. TVEyes’ Features ..................................................................................... 6
D. How TVEyes’ Customers Use TVEyes .................................................. 16
1. Subjects of Customers’ Searches ................................................. 16
2. Ways That Customers Search TVEyes ....................................... 17
3. Length of Clips That Users View ................................................ 17
E. The Benefits of TVEyes .......................................................................... 18
F. The Business of Fox News ..................................................................... 20
1. Fox’s Websites.............................................................................. 20
2. Fox’s Clip-Licensing Activities .................................................... 22
3. Fox Does Not Offer Media-Monitoring Services ......................... 22
G. The Works-in-Suit .................................................................................. 23
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 24
I. LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................... 24
II. TVEYES’ USE OF THE WORKS-IN-SUIT IS FAIR UNDER § 107 .............. 26
A. The Nature and Character of TVEyes’ Service Is Consistent
With the Principles Underlying Fair Use ............................................. 28
1. TVEyes’ Creation of a Comprehensive Searchable
Database of Broadcast Content Is Highly Transformative........ 29
2. TVEyes’ Use Of The Works-In-Suit Serves Important
Public Interests ............................................................................ 35
3. TVEyes’ For-Profit Status Does Not Weigh Against Fair
Use................................................................................................ 36
B. The Works-in-Suit Are Factual in Nature and Were Previously
Published ................................................................................................ 39
C. Copying the Entirety of the Works Was Necessary to Create a
Comprehensive, Text-Searchable Index and to Provide Targeted
Snippets to TVEyes’ Clients................................................................... 40
i
D. TVEyes’ Service Has No Negative Effect on Any Cognizable

Market for the Works-in-Suit and Provides a Tremendous Public
Benefit ..................................................................................................... 43
1. TVEyes Does Not Act as a Substitute for the Works-in-
Suit ............................................................................................... 45
a. TVEyes Does Not Affect Fox’s Revenues from Cable
Company Licenses or Advertising Partners .................... 45
b. TVEyes Does Not Affect the Secondary Market for
Public Performances Licenses for the Works-in-Suit ...... 46
c. TVEyes Does Not Deprive Fox of Revenue From
Use of the Works-in-Suit Online ...................................... 47
2. TVEyes Provides a Tremendous Benefit to the Public .............. 51
E. Weighing the Fair Use Factors, Along with Other Relevant
Considerations, TVEyes’ Use Is Fair ..................................................... 55
III. FOX’S “HOT NEWS” MISAPPROPRIATION CLAIM IS BOTH
PREEMPTED AND MERITLESS .................................................................... 56
A. Fox’s “Hot News” Misappropriation Claim Is Preempted by the
Copyright Act.......................................................................................... 56
1. Fox Has Not Identified Any Particular Piece of Exclusive,
Time-Sensitive “Hot News” That Was Misappropriated ........... 57
2. TVEyes Does Not “Free Ride” on Fox’s Efforts .......................... 60
3. TVEyes Is Not a Threat to the Very Existence of Fox’s
Newsgathering Activities ............................................................ 62
4. TVEyes and Fox Are Not “Direct Competitors” ......................... 62
B. Fox Cannot Prove “Hot News” Misappropriation On The Merits ........ 64
IV. FOX’S “DIRECT COMPETITION” MISAPPROPRIATION CLAIM IS
BOTH PREEMPTED AND MERITLESS ........................................................ 64
A. Fox’s “Direct Competition” Misappropriation Claim Is
Preempted by the Copyright Act ........................................................... 64
B. Fox’s “Direct Competition” Misappropriation Claim Is
Duplicative of Its “Hot News” Misappropriation Claim ....................... 67
C. Fox Cannot Prove “Direct Competition” Misappropriation on the
Merits ...................................................................................................... 67
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 69
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC,

562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 29, 30, 41
Am. Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc.,
60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994) ................................................................................ 37, 38
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242 (1986) ................................................................................................ 25
Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
954 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ..............................................................passim
Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust
--- F.3d ---, 2014 WL 2576342 (2d Cir. June 10, 2014) ...................................passim
BanxCorp v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
723 F. Supp. 2d 596 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ..................................................................... 59
Barclays Capital, Inc. v. TheFlyontheWall.com, Inc.,
650 F.3d 876 (2d Cir. 2011) ............................................................ 56, 67, 60, 61, 65
Bell v. Metro. Transp. Auth.,
No. 12 Civ. 1235(AKH), 2013 WL 8112461 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013) .................... 24
Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd.,
448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) .............................................................................passim
Blanch v. Koons,
467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006) .................................................................. 25, 27, 31, 38
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,
510 U.S. 569 (1994) .........................................................................................passim
Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of Am., Inc.,
262 F. Supp. 2d 204 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ..................................................................... 60
Cariou v. Prince,
714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013) .................................................................. 25, 31, 36, 38
Castle Rock Entm't, Inc. v. Carol Pub. Group, Inc.,
150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 27, 28
Computer Assoc. Int'l v. Altai, Inc.,
982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) .............................................................................. 57, 66
Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Gen. Signal Corp.,
724 F.2d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1983) ........................................................................ 36
Durham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp.,
630 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1980) .................................................................................... 66
iii
Eldred v. Ashcroft,
537 U.S. 186 (2003) ................................................................................................ 39
Eyal R.D. Corp. v. Jewelex New York Ltd.,
784 F. Supp. 2d 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ............................................................... 66, 67
Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
499 U.S. 340 (1991) ......................................................................................... 39, ,53
Fin. Info., Inc. v. Moody's Investors Serv., Inc.,
808 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1986) .............................................................................. 60, 65
Fred Wehrenberg Circuit of Theatres, Inc. v. Moviefone, Inc.,
73 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (E.D. Mo. 1999) ..................................................................... 26
Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy Indus. Corp.,
111 F.3d 993 (2d Cir. 1997) .................................................................................... 68
Harlen Assocs. v. Vill. of Mineola,
273 F.3d 494 (2d Cir. 2001) .................................................................................... 24
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.,
471 U.S. 539 (1985) ............................................................................................ 5, 28
Hollander v. Steinberg,
419 F. App'x. 44 (2d Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 25
International News Service v. Associated Press,
248 U.S. 215 (1918) .......................................................................................... 50, 60
Jeffrey Milstein, Inc. v. Greger, Lawlor, Roth Inc.,
58 F.3d 27, 34-35 (2d Cir. 1995) ............................................................................. 67
Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,
336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................. 30
Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.,
137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1998) .................................................................................... 31
Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell,
803 F.2d 1253 (2d Cir. 1986) .................................................................................. 37
Metro. Opera Ass'n, Inc. v. Wagner-Nichols Recorder Corp.,
101 N.Y.S.2d 483 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1950) .................................................................. 65
NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Inst.,
364 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 28, 29
N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan,
376 U.S. 254 (1964) ............................................................................................... 55
Nash v. CBS, Inc.,
704 F. Supp. 823 (N.D. Ill. 1989) ........................................................................... 66
iv
Nat'l Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola, Inc. ("NBA"),

105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997) .................................................................. 57, 61, 62, 63
New Era Publ’ns Int’l, ApS v. Carol Publ’g Grp.,
904 F.2d 152, 157 (2d Cir. 1990) ............................................................................ 39
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................ 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 41
Rockland Exposition, Inc. v. Alliance of Auto. Serv. Providers of N.J.,
894 F. Supp. 2d 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ..................................................................... 68
Roe v. City of Waterbury,
542 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................... 24
Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.,
977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................ 35
Silver v. Lavandeira,
2009 WL 513031 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2009) ............................................................ 59
Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
464 U.S. 417 (1984) ............................................................................. 35, 39, 41, 48
Scotto v. Almenas,
143 F.3d 105, 114 (2d Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 25
Sparaco v. Lawler, Matusky, Skelly Eng'rs,
303 F.3d 460 (2d Cir. 2002) .................................................................................... 39
Stadt v. Fox News Network LLC,
719 F. Supp. 2d 312 ................................................................................................ 66
Stewart v. Abend,
495 U.S. 207 (1990) ................................................................................................ 39
Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P.,
--- F.3d ---, 2014 WL 2219162 (2d Cir. May 30, 2014) ....................................passim
Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P.,
861 F. Supp. 2d 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ..................................................................... 42
Taggart v. WMAQ Channel 5 Chicago,
2000 WL 1923322 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2000) ............................................................ 39
U.S. ex rel. Berge v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala.,
104 F.3d 1453 (4th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................ 26
Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc.,
784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................... 64
Wright v. Warner Books, Inc.,
953 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1991) .................................................................................... 25
v
Statutes
26 U.S.C. § 9003(e)......................................................................................................... 7
47 C.F.R. § 79.1 .............................................................................................................. 7
17 U.S.C. § 107 ......................................................................................................passim
17 U.S.C. § 301 ....................................................................................................... 57, 65
47 U.S.C. § 611 ............................................................................................................... 7
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ..................................................................................................... 24
Miscellanesous
Pierre N. Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard,

103 HARV. L. REV. 1105, 1107 (1990) ............................................................... 26, 28
vi
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
TVEyes is a research tool that allows users to learn when and how a
particular word—any word—was used on television. Using state-of-the-art
technology, TVEyes captures the broadcasts of over 1,400 television and radio
stations, indexes every word spoken into a massive database, and enables users to
run searches on that database to discover: (1) the fact that a particular word was
mentioned; (2) the context of the mention; and (3) advanced metrics associated
with the mention. In delivering search results, TVEyes displays the text of the
broadcast transcript surrounding the user’s keyword and allows the user to view a
short excerpt of the corresponding video.
TVEyes’ service provides an enormous public benefit: there is simply no other
way to effectively monitor what is said on more than 27,000 hours of television
broadcasts every day without a tool like TVEyes. Clients use TVEyes to, among
other things: confirm the accuracy of the information reported on the air; ensure the
safety of American troops abroad; and criticize broadcast news itself. To serve the
diverse monitoring objectives of its clients, TVEyes must capture everything that
has aired, exactly as it aired, to create a complete and accurate searchable
database.
Through this action, Fox seeks to establish its exclusive control over the news
content it broadcasts. In Fox’s view, TVEyes’ service is unlawful because it
interferes with Fox’s exclusive right to determine when, how and on what terms it
makes previously broadcast news content available to the public.
And Fox carefully curates what content it
makes available to the public on its website, choosing to include some—but not all—
1
of what it previously broadcast. Such restrictions frustrate the purposes of those
who monitor the media.
The doctrine of fair use guarantees that use of copyrighted content—
particularly highly factual content, such as the programs that air on Fox News
Channel—is not an infringement when the use is for a different purpose than the
original and when the use benefits the public interest. Here, TVEyes’ media-
monitoring service fulfills a fundamentally different purpose than Fox’s

broadcasts—it is a research and reference tool that provides the important benefit
of allowing media, politicians, and the public to function as a watchdog over
channels such as Fox, and to conduct research on those channels’ accuracy, biases,
and trends. Such use is quintessentially fair. See, e.g., Authors Guild, Inc. v.
HathiTrust, --- F.3d ---, 2014 WL 2576342 (2d Cir. June 10, 2014) (copying of 10
million books in their entirety to create a text-searchable database is fair use);
Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P., --- F.3d ---, 2014 WL 2219162 (2d
Cir. May 30, 2014) (copying entirety of sound recording in furtherance of factual
accuracy, not piracy, is fair use); Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc., 954 F. Supp. 2d
282 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (Chin, J.) (copying books and providing users with snippets of
text in results is fair use).
Fox’s remaining state-law claims are meritless. For example, when asked to
identify Fox’s “hot news” that TVEyes allegedly misappropriated, Fox merely points
to its entire “coverage” of world events—e.g., two full months of reporting on the
“Arab spring uprisings,” and six weeks of reporting on “the papal resignation and
election.” Fox, however, does not own all news regarding the Arab uprisings or the
papal election—two of the most widely covered stories of the year. Covering an
important story, alongside thousands of others, does not render every second of
coverage “hot news,” owned by Fox. While Fox’s state-law claims are toothless
2
because they are preempted by the Copyright Act, they demonstrate the excessive
level of control Fox seeks to exert over basic facts, which cannot be owned.
The Court should: (1) recognize that TVEyes’ use is a fair, non-infringing use
under the § 107 of the Copyright Act; and (2) reject Fox’s claims of state-law
misappropriation as preempted and meritless. TVEyes’ motion for summary
judgment should be granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
A. Overview of TVEyes’ Service
TVEyes is a media-monitoring service that enables its clients to discover and
locate mentions of particular words on almost every major television and radio
broadcast in the United States. (SUF ¶¶ 2-3.) Launched in 1999, TVEyes uses
proprietary technology to: (1) capture television and radio content from more than
1,400 channels, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; (2) make that content text-
searchable by keyword; and (3) allow customers to view snippets of the content in
response to their queries. (Id. ¶ 3, 13.) Fundamentally, TVEyes is a tool, akin to a
search engine, that makes it possible for users to sift through vast amounts of
broadcast television content to locate particular information. (Id. ¶ 2-4.) Unlike a
traditional search engine, however, which queries only content that already exists
on the Internet, TVEyes captures and aggregates more than 27,000 hours of
content every day, broadcast on over 1,400 television and radio stations, and quickly
transforms it into a comprehensive, searchable database, to facilitate research. (Id.
¶ 13-15.) Without TVEyes (or a service like it), it would not be possible to efficiently
1 The material undisputed facts are set forth more fully in the accompanying
Statement of Undisputed Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, dated June 26, 2014
(“SUF”), and the Declarations of David Ives, David Seltzer, Jessica Rose, and Todd
Anten, dated June 26, 2014.
3
search through and review the staggering amount of information broadcast every
day on television. (Id. ¶ 14.)
B. TVEyes’ Clients
TVEyes is a subscription-based service that is offered exclusively to
businesses, organizations, and government bodies—e.g., elected officials, non-
profits, the media and political campaigns—to facilitate their internal research and
analysis of television content. (SUF ¶¶ 4-5.) Most TVEyes subscribers pay a fee of
$500 per month for access to TVEyes’ service, although select subscribers, such as
non-profits or journalists, may receive reduced rates. (Id. ¶ 6.) TVEyes does not
offer subscriptions to individuals (except in connection with the operation of a
business or political office), and the service is not intended for personal use. (Id.
¶ 5.) Further, it is TVEyes’ policy that subscribers are required to limit their use of
video content obtained from TVEyes solely to internal research and analysis—a
requirement that is stated in TVEyes’ contract, on its website, and in its
communications with subscribers. (Id. ¶¶ 7-9.)
As of October 2013, TVEyes had over 2,200 subscribers. (Id. ¶ 10.) TVEyes’
customers include:
 Governmental bodies,
 Congressional committees,
 Journalism organizations,
4
 Armed Services,
 Political candidates at the local, state, and national levels, as

well as political organizations,
 Non-profit organizations,
 For-profit corporations,
 Media organizations,
 Law enforcement offices,
 Public and private schools
 Legal organizations,
 Press relations organizations,
 Sports organizations,
(Id. ¶¶ 10-11.)
TVEyes’ clients use the service in various ways to facilitate their research
objectives. For example, journalists use TVEyes to comment on and criticize
broadcast news channels (including Fox), often by comparing and contrasting how
the major news networks cover particular news events. (Id. ¶¶10-11, 53, 59-60.)
Government officials and corporations use TVEyes to monitor the accuracy of facts
5
reported by the media so they can make timely corrections when necessary (Id.
¶¶10, 54, 57.) Political campaigns use TVEyes to monitor political advertising and
appearances of candidates in election years. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 51.) Financial firms use
TVEyes to track and archive public statements made about securities by their
employees for regulatory compliance. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 48.) The White House uses
TVEyes to evaluate news stories and give feedback to the press corps, including Fox
News. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 56.) Without TVEyes or a service akin to it, there would be no
way to effectively accomplish these objectives.
C. TVEyes’ Features2
TVEyes functions much like a search engine for television content. (SUF
¶¶ 3, 13-17.) Unlike a conventional search engine, however, TVEyes does not
“crawl” the Internet. This is because the vast majority of television content is not
posted to the Internet. Rather, TVEyes captures and indexes the actual broadcasts
of more than 1,400 television and radio stations, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, as
they are aired, and creates a comprehensive database of everything that was
broadcast, exactly as it was broadcast. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 13-16.) In so doing, TVEyes offers
a unique and important service by creating from scratch a text-searchable library of
broadcast content that would otherwise not exist, and making it searchable to
subscribers for research and analysis. (Id. ¶¶ 14-15.)
Using closed-captioned data and speech-to-text technology, TVEyes creates
transcript “indexes” for every word spoken on a particular television station.3 (Id.
2 Pursuant to a request by Fox, TVEyes provided Fox’s counsel with confidential

TVEyes credentials so that it could access and use the TVEyes service. Under
separate cover, TVEyes is providing the Court with confidential credentials so that
it may access and use the TVEyes service.
3 Since at least 2011, Fox has provided closed captioning for both daytime and
primetime shows. See http://help.foxnews.com/entries/505254-Does-Fox-News-
Channel-and-Fox-Business-Network-provide-closed-captioning-; see also 47 C.F.R.
§ 79.1 (FCC rules for closed captioning). While standard commercials shorter than
(footnote continued)
6
¶ 16.) When a user searches for a particular keyword, she will receive a list of
results that include: (1) a snippet of the transcript in which the keyword was used;
and (2) the ability to watch a short clip of the television broadcast in which the word
was used, beginning 14 seconds before the keyword was said. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.) This
is accomplished by a mathematical algorithm. (Id. ¶ 18.) Beginning the clip only a
few seconds before the keyword is uttered helps to ensure that TVEyes provides a
targeted result that is closely tailored to the user’s research needs. (Id.)
Content captured by TVEyes is searchable for up to 32 days from the date it
was first broadcast. (Id. ¶ 19.) All videos, other than those specifically archived by
users,4 are deleted from TVEyes servers 32 days after the broadcast was captured.
(Id.) As a result, TVEyes cannot be used to search or access content that is more
than a month old.
TVEyes’ clients can perform an unlimited number of search queries on its
system. (Id. ¶ 20.) Upon logging into the TVEyes website, hosted at
http://www.tveyes.com, clients are first brought to the “Watchlist” page (“Watchlist
Page”) of TVEyes’ Media Monitoring Suite (“MMS”). (Id. ¶ 21.) From the Watchlist
Page, clients can select the words or phrases that they wish to monitor on an
ongoing basis (“Watch Terms”), without ever having to conduct another manual
search for that word. (Id.) There is no limit to the number of Watch Terms that can
be monitored; indeed, some clients monitor hundreds of keywords and phrases
simultaneously. (Id. ¶ 22.)
5 minutes are not required to have closed captioning, 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(a)(1),

candidates for President and Vice President who receive money from the
Presidential Election Campaign Fund must closed-caption their advertisements, 26
U.S.C. § 9003(e). In addition, public service announcements are required to be
closed captioned. 47 U.S.C. § 611.
4 If a user saves a particular clip to her Media Center, then that clip may be
downloaded at any time that the account is active. However, the clip must still be
initially found and saved within 32 days of the original broadcast.
7
Figure 1: Watchlist Page
Figure 1 is an example of the MMS page displayed upon logging onto
TVEyes. This page gives the user an easy-to-understand metric of the overall
frequency of the appearance of a particular Watch Term by date. (Id. ¶ 24.) In this
example, “Starbucks” was mentioned in 264 unique instances across all media
(television and radio) on June 19, 2014. TVEyes also offers more advanced search
functionality (under “Add Advanced Terms”), which allows the user to add more
complex Watch Terms. (Id. ¶ 25.) MMS also allows users to: (1) run an instant
“Google News” search for the Watch Term, allowing users to compare mentions of
the Watch Term on the Internet with mentions of the Watch Term on television; (2)
edit the Watch Term; (3) view Media Stats for the Watch Term; (4) set up an Email
Alert for the Watch Term; or (5) delete the Watch Term. (Id. ¶ 26.)
8
The “Media Stats” function organizes data associated with each Watch Term.
(Id. ¶ 27.) For example, at a user’s request, TVEyes generates a graphic
representation of the number of times a Watch Term has been mentioned over a
given time period—month, day, week, or custom range. (Id.) In addition, users can
compare the relative frequency of mentions of multiple Watch Terms. Rolling over
any point in the graph provides the precise number of mentions. Figure 2 below
provides an example of the frequency of mentions of the two Watch Terms

“Starbucks” and “climate change” between May 21, 2014 and June 20, 2014—
allowing the user to compare and contrast coverage of these two Watch Terms:
Figure 2: Watchlist Mentions Over Time
9
When the user clicks “Marketshare,” TVEyes generates a “heatmap” of the
market share for the Watch Term, visually communicating the geographic location
and frequency of mentions, as in Figure 3 below:
Figure 3: Heatmap for Marketshare of Watch Term
(Id.)
When the user clicks “Broadcast Network,” TVEyes generates a pie chart
depicting the breakdown of broadcast stations on which the Watch Term was used,
as in Figure 4 below:
10
Figure 4: Watchlist Data Mentions By Source

(Id.)
The “Email Alert” function sends an email to the user from the email address
Results@TVEyes-Alerts.com whenever a Watch Term is mentioned. (Id. ¶ 28.) The
Email Alert received by the user contains a thumbnail image from the relevant
portion of the broadcast and a link to a short video clip of the use on TVEyes. (Id.)
Generally, a user will receive an Email Alert between after the
Watch Term was mentioned. The Email Alert feature is the fastest way to learn
that a Watch Term has been mentioned on the air. (Id. ¶ 29.)
The Watchlist Page (see Figure 1), includes hyperlinked numbers under the
“Mentions for Date” banner. (Id. ¶ 30.) When a user clicks a number, she is
brought to a results page (the “Results List Page”), where each mention of the
Watch Term on that date is organized in reverse chronological order, with the
Watch Term highlighted in a snippet of transcript text. (Id.) For example, if a user
clicks “264” for the Watch Term “Starbucks” on June 19, 2014, she encounters a
page listing the search results, as displayed in Figure 5 below:
11
Figure 5: Results List of Watch Term Hits
If the user clicks “Show Map” in the upper right on the Results List Page, a
map is displayed presenting where the mention occurred and the relative number of
mentions (by the size of the circle). (Id. ¶ 31.) Figure 6 below, for example, shows
that on June 19, 2014, the greatest number of mentions for “Starbucks” occurred in
Seattle-area media, while there were no mentions by Utah media:
12
Figure 6: Map of Watch Term Hits

When the user clicks a thumbnail image on the Results List Page, a video clip
begins to play automatically, accompanied by snippet of the transcript (with the
Watch Term highlighted). (Id. ¶ 32.) The clip begins 14 seconds before the Watch
Term mention to provide the user with sufficient context while still closely tailoring
the result to the user’s research needs. (Id.) Figure 7 below provides an example:
Figure 7: Transcript Page
13
As depicted in Figure 7, in addition to watching the relevant clip, the user
can also access a wealth of information about the video excerpt, including: (1) the
title of the program; (2) the precise date and time of the clip; (3) the transcript of the
video, drawn from the closed caption feed for the content; (4) the name and location
of the channel; (5) market viewership for the clip and
(6) the publicity value for the clip (Id.) In addition, the
user can save the clip; edit and download a shorter version of the clip and email the
clip or its transcript to others. (Id.) All of this is subject to the contractual
limitation that the video snippet is to be used for the client’s internal purposes only.
(Id. ¶¶ 7-9.)
On the Results List Page (see Figure 5), there is a small icon of a television
above each entry—this is a feature called “Media View” (the “Media View Page”).
(Id. ¶ 32.) When the user clicks the television icon instead of the thumbnail, the
user is presented with a more advanced presentation. (Id.) Upon clicking the icon,
the user is presented with a screen similar to the one in Figure 8 below:
Figure 8: Media View Page
14
The Media View Page not only presents the user with the clip (again,
beginning 14 seconds before the keyword is mentioned), but also highlights the
transcript as the text is spoken (in the example above, the words “for in libya” are
being spoken at that moment). (Id. ¶ 35.) The screen also displays: (1) the title of
the program, (2) the category of program (e.g., news); (3) the year the program
premiered; (4) the URL for that program’s website, if one exists; and (5) credits for
the program. (Id.) In the example above, because this excerpt comes from the Fox
News program America’s Newsroom, the user is provided with the URL to Fox’s
website for that program: http://www.foxnews.com/americas
newsroom/index.html.5 This data is automatically provided by the Rovi Corporation
and is not collected or maintained by TVEyes. (Id.) Clicking the “Viewership” tab
presents the total viewership and ad value for the clip. (Id. ¶ 36.) Clicking the
“Editor” tab allows the user to edit and save a short clip. (Id.)
In addition to Watch Terms, TVEyes allows users to run ad hoc keyword
search queries through its “Power Search” tool. (Id. ¶ 37.) The results of a user’s
Power Search are displayed in a result list—with a thumbnail image and transcript
excerpt—in reverse-chronological order (similar to the Results List for Watch Term
Hits shown in Figure 5). (Id.) And, similar to the Results List for Watch Term hits,
when the user clicks a thumbnail image, the user is brought to the clip’s
corresponding Transcript Page, exemplified in Figure 7 above.
TVEyes also has a “Date and Time Search” feature, which allows users to
play a video clip starting at a specific time on a specific television station, rather
than entering a search term. (Id. ¶ 39.) This tool is useful because sometimes
5 The Media View Page may provide the URL for the homepage for that program,
but it does not include a link to a particular clip on the Internet. It is not possible to
direct the user to a particular clip on the Internet because: (1) each user’s clip is
unique, starting about 14 seconds before the selected keyword; and (2) the vast
majority of broadcast content is not available on the Internet.
15
closed-caption text contains spelling errors, or is otherwise entirely absent (as is
sometimes the case with commercials, or where there is an error with the closed-
caption capture). (Id.) In such circumstances, Date and Time Search provides an
alternate way to research precisely what was said on a particular channel, at a
particular moment.
Clips offered by TVEyes in response to users’ queries are generated by a
mathematical algorithm. Each clip automatically begins 14 seconds before the

keyword is mentioned, to provide the user with sufficient context. (Id. ¶ 18.) In this
way, TVEyes precisely tailors the clip to the user’s research objective and thus
maximizes research efficiency. (Id.) Moreover, the clips generated by TVEyes are
responsive solely to the user’s queries, and do not correlate to the beginning, end, or
“heart” of any particular television program or segment, or to the headline or lede of
any particular broadcast. (Id. ¶ 40.) TVEyes does not identity the “top” stories of
the day, nor does it distinguish between important versus unimportant news, as
what is “unimportant” to one client may be “important” to another. (Id.) In other
words, TVEyes’ text-based search system is 100% content-neutral, correlating
results solely to the chosen search term and nothing more.
D. How TVEyes’ Customers Use TVEyes
1. Subjects of Customers’ Searches
The subjects of searches on TVEyes vary widely. The average TVEyes user
monitors Watch Terms simultaneously, although some monitor hundreds of
Watch Terms. (Id. ¶ 62.) For example, on January 13, 2014, among the ten most
popular Watch Terms were: “state police,” “Obama,” “Health Department,”
“national guard,” “Department of Health,” and “Special Olympics,” and each was
being monitored by more than 100 individual users. (Id.¶ 63 )
16
In a typical month, less than of users’ Watch Term hits result in a user
playing the corresponding video clip. (Id. ¶ 65.) In other words, the overwhelming
majority of TVEyes’ service is used to discover the mere fact that a particular Watch
Term was mentioned on the air, rather than to view a clip associated with that
Watch Term. (Id. ¶ 64.)
2. Ways That Customers Search TVEyes
Keyword search functionality is the heart of TVEyes’ service. Most clips on
TVEyes are discovered via the “Watch Terms” or “Power Search” functions. (Id.
¶ 66.) Less than of the plays originate with the “Date and Time Search”
feature. (Id. ¶ 67.)
3. Length of Clips That Users View
TVEyes’ users play the video clips they access for an average of
while the median play duration is (Id. ¶ 68.) In addition, of all
video clips played on TVEyes are three minutes or shorter in length; are two
minutes or shorter; and are one minute or shorter. (Id. ¶ 69.) While the
maximum length that any particular clip can be played is ten minutes, less than
of clips are ever played to the maximum. (Id. ¶ 70.)
User play statistics for Fox News Channel (“FNC”) and Fox Business
Network (“FBN”) are similar to the aggregate: Users play FNC clips for an average
of seconds and FBN clips for an average of seconds. (Id. ¶ 71.) For FNC,
of video clips are played for three minutes or less; are played for two minutes
less; and are played for one minute or less. (Id.) For FBN, of clips are
played for three minutes or less; are played for two minutes or less; and
are played for one minute or less. (Id.)
17
E. The Benefits of TVEyes
The benefits of TVEyes’ service are immense. TVEyes assembles from
scratch a library of television broadcast content that does not otherwise exist, and
renders it easily and efficiently text-searchable. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 45.) In so doing,
TVEyes enables clients to discover, track and utilize what was said on television for
multiple purposes having nothing to do with the mere watching of television.
Without TVEyes (or a service like it), there is no other way to sift through more
than 27,000 hours of programming broadcast on television every day—most of
which is not available online or anywhere else—to track and discover information.
(Id. ¶ 46.)
The various ways that TVEyes’ clients use the system to conduct research
and analysis demonstrate TVEyes’ enormous public benefits, ranging from
improving public safety to aiding legal enforcement to enabling media oversight.
For example:
 Financial firms use TVEyes to track and archive public

statements made by their analysts and commentators, to comply
with legal requirements;
 Advertising tracking firms use TVEyes to confirm that

television commercials ran at the proper times and around the
correct programming;
 Political campaigns use TVEyes to evaluate candidates’

public appearances, tweak their messages, and improve
candidates’ communication skills;
 Police departments, public health campaigns, and other

use TVEyes to track television coverage of public safety
messages across different stations and locations, and to and
adjust outreach efforts accordingly;
 Journalists use TVEyes to research, report on, compare and

contrast, and criticize broadcast news coverage—e.g., TVEyes is
an invaluable tool for journalists to research the frequency of
mentions of certain words across stations, to critique one station
18
for giving a particular story more or less coverage than its

competitors;
 Elected officials use TVEyes to confirm the accuracy of

information reported on the news and seek timely corrections of
misinformation; and
 Television networks use TVEyes to track their own

programming and to research the programming of their
competitors.
(Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 48-58, 60.) TVEyes and its users access broadcast content for
purposes entirely different from those served by the underlying broadcasts

themselves. Clients use TVEyes to monitor the news, not to watch it.
19
F. The Business of Fox News7
Fox owns and operates FNC and FBN, which are national cable channels.
(Id. ¶¶ 1, 91.) Fox content is broadcast on FNC and FBN, each of which telecasts
content 24 hours a day, every day. (Id. ¶ 91.)
(Id. ¶ 92.)
(Id. ¶ 94.)8
1. Fox’s Websites
Fox operates the websites associated with FNC and FBN, located at
http://www.foxnews.com and http://www.foxbusiness.com, respectively (collectively,
the “Fox Website”). (Id. ¶ 98). Fox makes some, but not all, of the content
previously broadcast on FNC and FBN available for viewing on the Fox Website.
(Id. ¶ 101). Fox alone controls what content previously broadcast on FNC and FBN,
if any, will be made available to the public via the Fox Website, and when, if ever, to
make such content available. (Id. ¶¶ 99, 101). Further, Fox can—and does—
7 At a Court conference on April 7, 2014, TVEyes noted it did not yet have the
opportunity to take a 30(b)(6) deposition of Fox. Thus, TVEyes has not had the
opportunity to ask Fox about its documents, licensing activities, revenues, websites,
purported markets, or any other topic; in contrast, Fox took a 30(b)(6) deposition of
TVEyes. The Court ruled that, at that time, a 30(b)(6) deposition of Fox was not
necessary; however, the Court noted that if a party believed that discovery was cut
off too soon, it could bring that to the Court’s attention. TVEyes respectfully
reserves that right, to the extent that Fox relies upon any evidence in its opposition
to this motion about which TVEyes did not have an opportunity to depose Fox.
8 In discovery, Fox refused to produce certain documents relating to Fox’s
revenues. For example, Fox refused to produce: (1) total annual revenues for Fox,
FNC, and FBN; (2) information demonstrating the methods by which revenues were
generated for its websites or any other authorized websites; and (3) actual or
potential revenues purportedly lost by Fox as a result of TVEyes’ service. (SUF
¶ 95.) To the extent such information could have any bearing on the Court’s
analysis, TVEyes respectfully seeks the opportunity to review the documents
requested and to depose Fox about their contents.
20
restrict or disable access to content on the Fox Website, and may do so at any time,
for any reason. (Id. ¶ 99.) In addition, the video content that Fox chooses to make
available on the Fox Website is materially different from what is broadcast on FNC
and FBN. (Id. ¶¶ 111-113). For example, video clips accessible on the Fox Website
do not contain a ticker graphic. (Id. ¶¶ 111-112.) However, on the original FBN
broadcast there is a graphic that displays: (1) the time of the broadcast; (2) the
station logo; (3) information about financial markets, including the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and stock prices; and (4) a running ticker of financial news. (Id.
¶ 112.) On the original FNC broadcast, there is a graphic that displays: (1) the
station logo; and (2) a running ticker of the latest news. (Id. ¶ 112.) In addition,
Fox broadcast content is sometimes “corrected” on the Fox Website, and the original
“as aired” version is not available on the Fox Website. (Id. ¶ 106).
In addition, Fox restricts how the public may use the content available on the
Fox Website through its Terms of Use. (Id. ¶ 114). Pursuant to these Terms,
visitors to the Fox Website may access video content for “personal use only and
[the content] may not be used for commercial purposes.” (Id. (emphasis added))
The Terms of Use for the Fox Website also prohibit users from downloading content
from the Fox Website. (Id.)
Fox claims to generate revenue on the Fox Website through advertisements
placed before video clips and from the placement of Fox-owned content on the
Yahoo!, Hulu.com and YouTube websites. There is no evidence, however, that any
revenue earned by Fox from advertising on the Fox Website or the placement of
content on the Yahoo!, Hulu, and/or YouTube websites, is directly attributable to
the display of the 19 Works-in-Suit on these sites, or that anyone who ever viewed
such content on TVEyes would otherwise go to the Fox Website, Yahoo!, Hulu, or
YouTube for the same information. (Id. ¶ 116).
21
2. Fox’s Clip-Licensing Activities
Both directly and through its exclusive licensee ITN Source, Inc., Fox licenses
content previously aired on FNC and FBN to third parties for use in connection
with the production of television shows, movies, advertisements, video games, film
festivals, e-books and other projects through which the Fox-owned work will be
publicly performed and/or displayed. (Id. ¶ 115.) There is no evidence that any of
this revenue is attributable to licenses issued for use of (1) the Works-in-Suit; or (2)
any Fox-owned content solely for internal research. (Id. ¶ 116.)
3. Fox Does Not Offer Media-Monitoring Services
Fox does not offer media-monitoring services. (Id. ¶¶ 93, 125). It does not
capture and index the complete broadcasts of over 1,400 television and radio
channels worldwide, exactly as they aired, to create complete and accurate database
of content that is text-searchable by keyword. (Id.) Fox does not provide a web-
22
based software platform for monitoring and accessing snippets of previously aired
content for internal use. (Id.) Fox does not provide data about the frequency of the
keyword, the geographic location of where it was mentioned, or other data analytics
tools. Fox does not offer an e-mail alert-service that sends notification moments
after a keyword of interest is mentioned on the air. (Id. ¶¶ 93, 102, 125.) Fox does
not even provide access on the Fox Website to all the content aired on FBN or FNC,
nor does it permit the public to use the content it does post for commercial business
purposes. (Id. ¶ 101.)
G. The Works-in-Suit
Fox claims that TVEyes has infringed its rights under federal copyright law
in 19 individual hour-long programs, referred to herein as the “Works-in-Suit.” (Id.
¶ 72.)9 All of the Works-in Suit, which were initially broadcast on FNC between
October 16, 2012 and July 3, 2013, are highly factual news programs, many
containing live interviews and video footage owned by other networks. (Id. ¶¶ 72-
73.)
Because TVEyes allows users to search for and view content only within 32
days of the initial broadcast, none of the Works-in-Suit are now available on
TVEyes, and they have not been for many months. (Id. ¶ 76). Over the entirety of
the 32 days that each Work-in-Suit was available for searching, there were a total of
560 plays for clips sourcing from the Works-in-Suit. (Id. ¶ 77). As a basis for
comparison, in an average month, there are about plays for video clips on
TVEyes. (Id. ¶ 78). The video plays resulting from users accessing the Works-in-
9 The 19 Works-in-Suit consist of: two episodes of On the Record with Greta Van
Sustren; three episodes of Special Report with Bret Baier; three episodes of The
Five; four episodes of The O’Reilly Factor; two episodes of The Fox Report with
Shepard Smith; four episodes of Hannity; and one episode of Special Report
Investigates: Death & Deceit in Benghazi. (SUF ¶ 72.)
23
Suit thus accounted for approximately of all the video
plays in the month the Works-in-Suit were available on TVEyes. (Id. ¶ 79).
The average length of the clips played from the Works-In-Suit by TVEyes
users was 53.4 seconds, with the full range spanning from 11.5 seconds to 362
seconds. (Id. ¶ 80). As each Work-in-Suit constituted a one-hour broadcast, this
represents approximately 0.32% to 10% of the total length of each broadcast.
Further, 85.5% of all of the clips viewed from the Works-in-Suit were less than one
minute long, and 76% were less than 30 seconds long; and 51% were less than 10
seconds long. (Id. ¶ 81). One of the Works-in-Suit was never played by any TVEyes
user. (Id. ¶ 77).
It is not disputed that Fox received fees from cable companies to air FNC
programming, which includes the Works-in-Suit, or that Fox received revenue from
advertisers to air commercials before, during, or after breaks in the Works-in-Suit.
However, there is no evidence that Fox has ever earned any revenue from directly
licensing any of the 19 Works-in-Suit to any party for any purpose after the Works-
in-Suit aired on FNC. For example, there is no evidence that anyone has ever asked
ITN Source for a license of any sort—let alone one for internal review and
analysis—for any of the Works-In-Suit.
ARGUMENT
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings and
supporting documents “show[] that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). The Court must “resolve all ambiguities, and credit all factual inferences
that could rationally be drawn, in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.”
Roe v. City of Waterbury, 542 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
24
However, “[m]ere speculation and conjecture is insufficient to preclude the granting
of the motion.” Harlen Assocs. v. Vill. of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494, 499 (2d Cir. 2001).
Thus, “the non-moving party may not rely on conclusory allegations or
unsubstantiated speculation to defeat the summary judgment motion,” Bell v.
Metro. Transp. Auth., No. 12 Civ. 1235(AKH), 2013 WL 8112461, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 1, 2013) (Hellerstein, J.) (citing Scotto v. Almenas, 143 F.3d 105, 114 (2d Cir.
1998)). Further, even where admissible evidence is presented by the non-movant,

“[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position
will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find
for the plaintiff.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
TVEyes’ copyright fair use defense “is a mixed question of law and fact.”
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 560 (1985).
However, “the court may resolve issues of fair use at the summary judgment stage
where there are no genuine issues of material fact.” Bill Graham Archives v.
Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605, 608 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Wright v. Warner
Books, Inc., 953 F.2d 731, 735 (2d Cir. 1991)). Thus, courts in this district have “on
numerous occasions resolved fair use determinations at the summary judgment
stage.” Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694, 704 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Blanch v. Koons,
467 F.3d 244, 250 (2d Cir. 2006)). See, e.g., Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust
(“HathiTrust”), --- F.3d ---, 2014 WL 2576342 (2d Cir. June 10, 2014) (affirming
district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant on fair use grounds);
Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P. (“Swatch”), --- F.3d ---, 2014 WL
2219162 (2d Cir. May 30, 2014) (same); Cariou, 714 F.3d 694 (same); Hollander v.
Steinberg, 419 F. App’x. 44 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) (same); Blanch, 467 F.3d
244 (same); Bill Graham, 448 F.3d 605 (same); Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc.
(“Google Books”), 954 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (Chin, J.) (same).
25
As to Fox’s remaining state-law misappropriation claims, “[w]hether federal
copyright law preempts a state law claim is a question of law.” U.S. ex rel. Berge v.
Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala., 104 F.3d 1453, 1463 (4th Cir. 1997). Fox bears the
burden of directing the Court to evidence establishing that these claims are not
preempted. See, e.g., Fred Wehrenberg Circuit of Theatres, Inc. v. Moviefone, Inc.,
73 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1050 (E.D. Mo. 1999) (granting defendant’s motion for
summary judgment on “hot news” claim because “plaintiff here has failed to
establish the last element of the ‘hot news’ exception to preemption”).
As explained below, the material facts here are not in dispute, and a finding
of summary judgment for TVEyes as to all three of Fox’s claims is warranted.
II. TVEYES’ USE OF THE WORKS-IN-SUIT IS FAIR UNDER § 107
The overriding purpose of copyright is “[t]o promote the Progress of Science
and useful Arts.” Campbell v. Acuff–Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 574 (1994)
(quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8). Accordingly, “our law recognizes that
copyright is ‘not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that confers on authors the
absolute ownership of their creations. It is designed rather to stimulate activity
and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public.’” HathiTrust,
2014 WL 2576342, at *4 (quoting Pierre N. Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103
HARV. L. REV. 1105, 1107 (1990)).
One “important limit[] to an author’s rights to control original and derivative
works … is the doctrine of ‘fair use.’” Id. at *5. Indeed, “[f]rom the infancy of
copyright protection, some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has
been thought necessary to fulfill copyright’s very purpose.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at
575. Though of common-law origin, the fair use doctrine was codified into the
Copyright Act in 1976 at § 107. “Congress meant § 107 to restate the present
judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way and
26
intended that courts continue the common-law tradition of fair use adjudication.”
Id. at 577 (quotations omitted). Thus, § 107 “permits and requires courts to avoid
rigid application of the copyright statute, when, on occasion, it would stifle the very
creativity which that law is designed to foster.” Castle Rock Entm’t, Inc. v. Carol
Pub. Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132, 141 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Campbell, 510 U.S. at
577).
Title 17, United States Code, Section 107 states in relevant part:
[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by

reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching …
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of
copyright. In determining whether the use made of a
work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be
considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including

whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for
nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used

in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for
or value of the copyrighted work.
Determining whether a particular use is fair “is not to be simplified with
bright-line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case-by-
case analysis.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 577. Thus, a court is to “engage in ‘an open-
ended and context-sensitive inquiry.’” Swatch, 2014 WL 2219162, at *5 (quoting
Blanch, 467 F.3d at 251). The examples of fair use provided in the preamble of
§ 107 “are ‘illustrative and not limitative’ and ‘provide only general guidance about
the sorts of copying that courts and Congress most commonly had found to be fair
uses.’” Castle Rock Entm’t, 150 F.3d at 141 (quoting Campbell, 510 U.S. at 577-78).
27
To this end, the four fair-use factors “are non-exclusive.” Swatch, 2014 WL
2219162, at *5. In addition, a defendant “need not establish that each of the factors
set forth in § 107 weighs in [its] favor.” NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Inst., 364 F.3d 471,
476-77 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted). This is because “[t]he factors do
not represent a score card that promises victory to the winner of the majority.
Rather, they direct courts to examine the issue from every pertinent corner and to
ask in each case whether, and how powerfully, a finding of fair use would serve or
disserve the objectives of copyright.” Leval, supra, at 1110-11. Thus, the statutory
factors “guide but do not control” fair use analysis, Castle Rock Entm’t, 150 F.3d at
141, and “are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the
purposes of copyright,” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 578. “The ultimate test of fair use is
whether the copyright law’s goal of promoting the Progress of Science and useful
Arts would be better served by allowing the use than by preventing it.” Bill
Graham, 448 F.3d 605 at 608 (quotations omitted).
Finally, because fair use requires a “case-by-case determination,” the Court is
tasked with determining “whether a particular use is fair.” Harper & Row, 471
U.S. at 549 (emphasis added); see also Swatch, 2014 WL 2219162, at *5 (same).
Thus, in assessing whether TVEyes engaged in fair use, the Court is required to
limit its assessment to the 19 Works-in-Suit.
Applying these principles to Fox’s claim, TVEyes’ use of the 19 Works-in-Suit
as part of a research tool for discovering and analyzing excerpts of television
broadcasts is fair.
A. The Nature and Character of TVEyes’ Service Is Consistent

With the Principles Underlying Fair Use
The first fair-use factor considers “the purpose and character of the use,
including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes.” 17 U.S.C. § 107(1). “[T]here is a strong presumption that factor one
28
favors the defendant if the allegedly infringing work fits the description of uses
described in [the preamble] of] § 107,” such as research, criticism, comment, and
news reporting. NXIVM, 364 F.3d at 477 (quotations omitted). TVEyes is designed
to assist users in discovering not only the fact that a particular keyword was used
on a broadcast, but also how it was used, and how that use compares with uses of
other words. (SUF ¶¶ 4, 26-27, 32, 64); see Google Books, 954 F. Supp. 2d at 287
(describing similar system as “an essential research tool” that, in particular, allows
users “to analyze massive amounts of data”). Further, TVEyes informs its uses that
it is to be used for research and analysis only. (Id. ¶¶ 7-9). Because TVEyes fits
comfortably within the illustrative guide of fair uses, factor one presumptively
favors TVEyes.
Even apart from this “strong presumption,” the first factor strongly favors
TVEyes because: (1) the use is highly transformative; (2) TVEyes’ use serves
important public interests; (3) any commerciality is of minimal relevance; and (4)
there is no evidence of bad faith.
1. TVEyes’ Creation of a Comprehensive Searchable

Database of Broadcast Content Is Highly Transformative
“An important focus of the first factor is whether the use is ‘transformative.’”
HathiTrust, 2014 WL 2576342, at *6. This inquiry evaluates whether the use “adds
something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with
new expression, meaning, or message.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579. Further, “the
more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors,
like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.” Id.
Crucially, “[t]he use of a copyrighted work need not alter or augment the
work to be transformative in nature.” A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC,
562 F.3d 630, 639 (4th Cir. 2009). Rather, a use “can be transformative in function
or purpose without altering or actually adding to the original work.” Swatch, 2014
29
WL 2219162, at *8 (quoting Vanderhye, 562 F.3d at 639) (emphasis added). The
Second Circuit has held, for example, that “[i]n the context of news reporting and
analogous activities, … the need to convey information to the public accurately may
in some instances make it desirable and consonant with copyright law for a
defendant to faithfully reproduce an original work without alteration.” Id. at *8.
Indeed, the Second Circuit recently found the copying of entire copyrighted books
without alteration or augmentation, for the purpose of creating a text-searchable

database, to be “a quintessentially transformative use.” HathiTrust, 2014 WL
2576342, at *7; see also Vanderhye, 562 F.3d at 639 (copying entire essays, without
alteration, into database for plagiarism detection transformative); Perfect 10, Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (copying of entire images into
database for Internet search engine results transformative); Kelly v. Arriba Soft
Corp., 336 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2002) (similar).
Because TVEyes’ service employs the Works-in-Suit for a different “function
or purpose” than Fox’s original transmission, its use is highly transformative on
multiple levels.
First, TVEyes captures and indexes broadcast feeds from hundreds of
television channels, including FNC and FBN, and transforms those feeds into a
comprehensive, text-searchable, word index that enables its users to discover when,
where, and how a particular word was mentioned on television or radio. (SUF ¶¶ 3,
13-17.) This service is functionally indistinguishable from the digitizing and
indexing of books to create a text-searchable database that the Second Circuit has
found to be “quintessentially transformative.” HathiTrust, 2014 WL 2576342, at *7.
In that case, a group of authors claimed that HathiTrust’s copying and digitizing of
more than ten million books to create a full-text searchable database of their
contents (the “HDL”) infringed their copyrights. Id. *1. The Second Circuit found
this use to be transformative:
30
[T]he result of a word search is different in purpose,

character, expression, meaning, and message from the
page (and the book) from which it is drawn. Indeed, we
can discern little or no resemblance between the original
text and the results of the HDL full-text search. There is
no evidence that the Authors write with the purpose of
enabling text searches of their books. Consequently, the
full-text search function does not “supersede[] the objects
[or purposes] of the original creation.” The HDL does not
“merely repackage[] or republish[] the original[s],” or
merely recast “an original work into a new mode of
presentation.” Instead, by enabling full-text search,
the HDL adds to the original something new with a
different purpose and a different character.
Id. at *7 (emphasis added, citation omitted).
TVEyes is no different. It captures broadcast content to make it searchable
by keyword, and thus is different in purpose, character, expression, meaning, and
message than the original broadcast. There is no evidence that Fox creates
broadcast content for the purpose of enabling text-based searches. Moreover,
TVEyes’ “overriding purpose here was not to ‘scoop[]’ [Fox] or ‘supplant the
copyright holder’s commercially valuable right of first publication,’ … but rather
simply to deliver newsworthy … information” to its customers. Swatch, 2014 WL
2219162, at *7 (quoting Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 562). At base, TVEyes provides
a powerful research tool that enables users to efficiently navigate an otherwise
unmanageable quantity of data and discover, with appropriate context, how certain
words were mentioned on television.
TVEyes’ creation of a text-searchable database “adds a great deal more to the
copyrighted works at issue than did the transformative uses [the Second Circuit]
approved in several other cases.” HathiTrust, 2014 WL 2576342, at *7 (citing
Cariou, 714 F.3d at 706; (finding transformation); Bill Graham, 448 F.3d at 609-11
(same); Blanch, 467 F.3d at 252-53 (same); Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.,
137 F.3d 109, 114 (2d Cir. 1998) (same); see also id. at *8 (citing cases from other
circuits that support this conclusion, including Perfect 10, Arriba, and Vanderhye).
Indeed, TVEyes presents an even more compelling case—TVEyes captures and
31
indexes broadcasts, which are ephemeral and largely unavailable once they have
aired. (SUF ¶ 15). By contrast, words on a page are already in a form that lends
itself to searching. TVEyes thus not only collects the information (akin to
HathiTrust), but adds another level of transformation by making video broadcasts
text-searchable.
Second, TVEyes’ service further transforms the Works-in-Suit by
incorporating them into a comprehensive database of all content broadcast over

1,400 of television and radio stations, creating a “one-stop shop” for researching
broadcast content. (SUF ¶¶ 3-4,13-15, 44-45.) A user selects a keyword or phrase
to monitor, and TVEyes automatically searches for it across all of these stations,
every day, seven days a week, without the user ever having to conduct a manual
search again. (Id. ¶¶ 21, 23.) In response to this query, TVEyes returns the
keyword “hit” results from all stations in reverse chronological order, enabling users
to conduct substantive research, such as the analysis of overall frequency of
particular word mentions across television channels, comparisons between word
frequency on television channels, and differences in word frequency on broadcasts
in different areas of the country. (Id. ¶¶ 17-27). If the user so chooses, TVEyes will
also send an email alerting the user that her Watch Term has been spoken on
television, providing a link to transcript and video excerpts surrounding the Watch
Term. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29.) Such data could not be available absent a research tool such
as TVEyes, which undertakes the task of capturing all major broadcasts, digitizing
them, and making them text-searchable. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14, 46.)
This use is highly transformative in its own right, as such tools “add[s]
something new” to the original broadcast. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579. Judge Chin
came to a similar conclusion in Google Books, finding the Google Books service,
which “digitizes books and transforms expressive text into a comprehensive word
32
index that helps readers, scholars researchers, and others find books,” to be “highly
transformative.” 954 F. Supp. 2d at 291. Judge Chin explained:
Google Books is also transformative in the sense that it

has transformed book text into data for purposes of
substantive research, including data mining and text
mining in new areas, thereby opening up new fields of
research. Words in books are being used in a way they
have not been used before. Google Books has created
something new in the use of book text—the frequency of
words and trends in their usage provide substantive
information.
Id. The same is true for TVEyes—it transforms broadcasts into data for purposes of
substantive research, opening up new fields of research. By contrast, Fox does not
provide a comprehensive, digitized database of over 1,400 television and radio
broadcasts, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, searchable by keyword, that alerts
users by email within moments that the keyword is mentioned. Fox offers no
service that could allow users to conduct research on a complete data set of
broadcast text, exactly as that text was stated on the air. (SUF ¶¶ 93, 100-110.)
Third, as to the ability to play snippets of video responsive to a search
request, TVEyes’ service is also highly transformative, as these clips are accessed
for a different purpose than the original broadcasts. As discussed above, TVEyes’
clients use the service for diverse purposes—e.g., to evaluate and criticize broadcast
journalism, to misinformation, to evaluate commercial advertising, to evaluate
national security risks for U.S. troops, to track compliance with financial market
regulations—none of which implicates the original purpose of the broadcast, and
thus are transformative uses. Monitoring television simply is not the same as
watching it. Snippets generated by TVEyes are designed to serve the former
purpose, not the latter—they are closely tailored to meet the user’s research needs;
each clip begins just 14 seconds before the keyword is mentioned. (Id. ¶ 18.) The
fact that the average length that TVEyes’ users play video excerpts is just
and that of all plays are shorter than 12 seconds, further
33
demonstrates that TVEyes’ purpose is different than Fox’s and does not supersede
the original. (Id. ¶ 68.) TVEyes’ subscribers do not pay $500 per month so that
they can watch Fox programming. Finally, the clips generated by TVEyes are
content–neutral, corresponding to the search term only, regardless of where and
when it appears in a broadcast. (Id. ¶ 40.) These snippets, much like the concert
posters in Bill Graham, are small, tailored references to past events, i.e., past
broadcasts. See, e.g., Google Books, 954 F. Supp. 2d at 291 (“[t]he display of
snippets of text for search is similar to the display of … small images of concert
posters for reference to past events”).
TVEyes’ use is even more limited than uses in other search-engine cases
where transformation was recognized. In Perfect 10, for example, where the
defendant displayed the entirety of the copyrighted work, the court found the
display to be transformative because “a search engine puts images in a different
context so that they are transformed into a new creation.” 508 F.3d at 1165
(quotations omitted). Here, any particular search result returns only a short
portion of the original broadcast. See William F. Patry, Patry on Fair Use (“Patry”)
§ 3.9 (“Providing access to portions of a work for research purposes will be fair use,
even if to do so a copy must be made, as by a library or a search engine.”). Further,
a fully accurate visual recreation in the form of a video snippet is necessary to
accomplish TVEyes’ fair-use goals. As courts recognize, particularly “[i]n the
context of news reporting and analogous activities … the need to faithfully convey
information to the public accurately may in some instances make it desirable and
consonant with copyright law for a defendant to reproduce an original work without
alteration.” Swatch, 2014 WL 2219162, at *8. In Swatch, for example, the Court
recognized that by disseminating an actual sound recording, unaltered, “Bloomberg
was able to convey with precision not only the raw data of … words, but also the
more subtle indications of meaning inferable from their hesitation, emphasis, tone
34
of voice, and aspects of their delivery.” Id. Likewise, the video excerpts provided by
TVEyes convey important information that cannot be obtained from a mere
transcript, such as the tone of voice, gestures and body language of the speaker, and
graphics and visual images on the screen at the time the keyword was mentioned.
2. TVEyes’ Use Of The Works-In-Suit Serves Important

Public Interests
Apart from transformation, the first factor weighs in favor of fair use where
the use serves important public interests. Courts consistently consider the social
benefit that a secondary use provides, apart from whether the use is transformative
or commercial. See, e.g., Perfect 10, 508 F.3d at 1166 (in addition to transformation
and commerciality, court must weigh “the extent to which [defendant’s] search
engine promotes the purposes of copyright and serves the interests of the public”);
Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1523 (9th Cir. 1992) (court “free
to consider the public benefit resulting from a particular use”); see also Sony Corp.
of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 454 (1984) (“to the extent time-
shifting expands public access to freely broadcast television, it yields societal
benefits”); HathiTrust, 2014 WL 2576342, at *12 (first factor favored fair use, even
absent transformation, because providing the copyrighted material is in the public
interest to make appropriate accommodations for the blind and print disabled).
This is because “[t]he key issue in every case is whether the use is beneficial to
society.” Patry § 3:9.
Courts have found the first factor to favor fair use—even absent
transformation—where the use benefits society. In Swatch, for example, by
disseminating “a full, unadulterated recording” of an earnings call, “Bloomberg was
able to convey valuable factual information that would have been impaired” had it
not been permitted to disseminate the call. 2014 WL 2219162, at *9. The Second
Circuit concluded that the first factor favored fair use “regardless of how
35
transformative the use is” because “Bloomberg’s faithful reproduction … served ‘the
interest of accuracy, not piracy.’” Id. at *9 (quoting Consumers Union of United
States, Inc. v. Gen. Signal Corp., 724 F.2d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1983)).
TVEyes’ service overwhelmingly furthers important public interests in
connection with research, education, and faithful reproduction with accuracy.
Searchable databases such as TVEyes’ are consistently found to promote the
purposes of copyright and the public interest. See, e.g., Perfect 10, 508 F.3d at 1165
(“[A] search engine provides a social benefit by incorporating an original work into a
new work, namely, an electronic reference tool”); Google Books, 954 F. Supp. 2d at
292 (“Google Books serves several important educational purposes”). By capturing,
digitizing, and making searchable television content in the manner described above,
TVEyes has created an original, electronic reference tool that furthers the research
and educational purposes copyright law was designed to protect. Without TVEyes—
or a service like it—it would not be possible to search all television broadcasts by
keyword. (SUF ¶¶ 14, 46).
In addition, as discussed infra at Part IV.D.2, TVEyes’ service also serves the
public interest because it facilitates: (1) criticism of Fox and other news
broadcasters; and (2) access to facts when Fox is itself the subject of news.
3. TVEyes’ For-Profit Status Does Not Weigh Against Fair

Use
While a court will consider whether the use “is of a commercial nature” as
part of its first-factor analysis, such considerations carry minimal weight in the
circumstances presented here. “[T]he more transformative the new work, the less
will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against
a finding of fair use.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579. Thus, courts routinely afford the
most minimal weight to commerciality where a use is transformative. See, e.g.,
Cariou, 714 F.3d at 708 (“Although there is no question that Prince’s artworks are
36
commercial, we do not place much significance on that fact due to the
transformative nature of the work.”); NXIVM, 364 F.3d at 478 (“Finding the work
substantially transformative, the district court properly discounted the secondary
commercial nature of the use.”). Because TVEyes’ service is highly transformative,
the commerciality of the service has minimal relevance here.
Even if the Court disregarded the transformative nature of the uses, any
commerciality of TVEyes’ service does not weigh against fair use. The proper
inquiry is not merely whether TVEyes operates for profit, as “nearly all of the
illustrative uses listed in the preamble paragraph of § 107 … are generally
conducted for profit.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 584 (quotations omitted). Rather,
“[t]he commercial/nonprofit dichotomy concerns the unfairness that arises when a
secondary user makes unauthorized use of copyrighted material to capture
significant revenues as a direct consequence of copying the original work.” Am.
Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 60 F.3d 913, 922 (2d Cir. 1994) (emphasis added).
Further, commerciality is not “a clear-cut choice between two polar
characterizations, ‘commercial’ and ‘non-profit.’ … The commercial nature of a use
is a matter of degree, not an absolute.” Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell, 803 F. 2d
1253, 1262 (2d Cir. 1986).
Here, there is no evidence that TVEyes directly sold any of the Works-in-Suit
for profit. See Google Books, 954 F. Supp. 2d at 292 (Google Books “does not engage
in the direct commercialization of copyrighted works”). Rather, TVEyes charges a
flat fee of $500 a month to conduct unlimited research on all television and radio
broadcasts. Whether a user ever searches or plays for FNC or FBN content does not
affect that price. (SUF ¶ 6, 12). Because “the link between [TVEyes’] commercial
gain and its copying is … attenuated,” Am Geophysical Union, 60 F.3d at 922, such
use should not weigh against fair use. In Swatch, for example, the Second Circuit
assigned the commerciality of Bloomberg Professional “relatively little weight,” even
37
though it—like TVEyes—was “a subscription service available to paying users,”
because “it would strain credulity to suggest that providing access to Swatch
Group’s earnings call more than trivially affected the value of that service.” 2014
WL 2219162, at *7. So too in this case: users’ access to snippets of the 19 particular
Works-in-Suit (compared to Bloomberg, which provided the entire work at issue) for
32 days could not have more than trivially affected the value of TVEyes’ service.
(SUF ¶ 79 (plays of snippets from the Works-in-Suit accounted for about

of all the video plays in the month they were
available).)
Finally, any economic gain by TVEyes from any use of the 19 Works-in-Suit
was not “to the exclusion of broader public benefits.” Am. Geophysical Union, 60
F.3d at 921-22. Just as the exhibition of art has “value that benefits the broader
public interest” even though “artists are sometimes paid and museums sometimes
earn money,” Blanch, 467 F.3d at 254 (quotations omitted), TVEyes provides a
research tool for discovering, locating, and learning about broadcast content for a
new and different purpose. Where a defendant’s use serves the broader public
interest—particularly an educational interest, as a research tool does—
commerciality takes on a reduced role. See Google Books, 954 F. Supp. 2d at 292
(“[E]ven assuming Google’s principal motivation is profit, the fact is that Google
Books serves several important educational purposes.”). 10
10 While authorities have questioned the relevance of good or bad faith to the first
factor, see, e.g., Swatch, 2014 WL 2219162, at *7 (questioning the “role good or bad
faith plays in fair use analysis”), there is no evidence TVEyes acted in bad faith.
For example, TVEyes’ awareness that Fox did not wish for its content to be
captured is not evidence of bad faith. See Campbell, 510 U.S. at 585 n.18 (“being
denied permission to use a work does not weigh against a finding of fair use”);
Swatch, 2014 WL 2219162, at *7 (similar).
38
B. The Works-in-Suit Are Factual in Nature and Were Previously

Published
The second fair-use factor assesses “the nature of the copyrighted work.”
§ 107(2). This factor recognizes “that some works are closer to the core of intended
copyright protection than others,” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586. In considering this
factor, courts consider “(1) whether the work is expressive or creative, ... with a
greater leeway being allowed to a claim of fair use where the work is factual or
informational, and (2) whether the work is published or unpublished, with the scope
for fair use involving unpublished works being considerably narrower.” Cariou, 714
F.3d at 709-10 (quotations omitted). Both strongly favor TVEyes.
First, “[i]t is well established that ‘the scope of fair use is greater with respect
to factual than non-factual works.’” Swatch, 2014 WL 2219162, at *13 (quoting New
Era Publ’ns Int’l, ApS v. Carol Publ’g Grp., 904 F.2d 152, 157 (2d Cir. 1990)); see
also, e.g., Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 237 (1990) (“In general, fair use is more
likely to be found in factual works than in fictional works.”); Harper & Row, 471
U.S. at 563 (noting “a greater need to disseminate factual works than works of
fiction or fantasy”); Sony Corp., 464 U.S. at 455 n.40 (“Copying a news broadcast
may have a stronger claim to fair use than copying a motion picture.”). The Works-
in-Suit are all highly factual television news programs. (SUF ¶¶ 72-73). Almost
every element of these works—e.g., facts and information conveyed, unscripted
interviews, and the like—are protectable only to the extent of their placement in the
work’s overall arrangement; otherwise, Fox would benefit from an impermissible
copyright over facts and news of the day. See, e.g., Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186,
219 (2003) (“Every idea, theory, and fact in a copyrighted work becomes instantly
available for public exploitation at the moment of publication”); Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v.
Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 348 (1991) (“[A]ll facts—scientific, historical,
biographical, and news of the day … may not be copyrighted and are part of the
39
public domain available to every person.”); Sparaco v. Lawler, Matusky, Skelly
Eng’rs, 303 F.3d 460, 466-67 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[H]istorical, scientific, or factual
information belongs in the public domain, and … allowing the first publisher to
prevent others from copying such information would defeat the objectives of
copyright by impeding rather than advancing the progress of knowledge.”); see also
Taggart v. WMAQ Channel 5 Chicago, 2000 WL 1923322, at *4-5 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 30,
2000) (unscripted interview answers not protectable under copyright law). Indeed,
the Works-in-Suit themselves contain snippets from broadcasts of competing news
channels, such as CNN and MSNBC, which FNC presumably used for their factual
content, pursuant to the doctrine of fair use. (Id. ¶ 70). (listing third-party video
excerpts contained in the Works-in-Suit)). The inherently factual nature of the
Works-in-Suit favors dissemination.
Second, courts also consider whether the plaintiff’s works were published at
the time of the use. Here, there is no dispute that, at the time of TVEyes’ capture
and indexing of Fox’s broadcasts, the Works-in-Suit were already published—
TVEyes captures only what has already been disseminated, and thus necessarily
captures only already-published broadcasts. (Id. ¶ 85).
Because the Works-in-Suit (1) are highly factual and (2) were published prior
to TVEyes’ use, this factor strongly favors fair use.
C. Copying the Entirety of the Works Was Necessary to Create a

Comprehensive, Text-Searchable Index and to Provide
Targeted Snippets to TVEyes’ Clients
The third factor considers “the amount and substantiality of the portion used
in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.” § 107(3). In conducting this
analysis, the Court is to assess “whether the secondary use employs more of the
copyrighted work than is necessary, and whether the copying was excessive in
relation to any valid purposes asserted under the first factor.” HathiTrust, 2014
40
WL 2576342, at *6. “For some purposes, it may be necessary to copy the entire
copyrighted work, in which case Factor Three does not weigh against a finding of
fair use.” Id. at *8; see, e.g., Sony Corp., 464 U.S. at 449-50 (entire work copied);
Bill Graham, 448 F.3d at 613 (entire image copied). Here, this factor does not
weigh against fair use.
Courts routinely recognize that it is reasonably necessary for a secondary
user to utilize the entirety of copyrighted works in order to create a full-text

searchable database. In HathiTrust, for example, the Second Circuit held that the
copying of the entirety of millions books for the purpose of creating a text-
searchable database did not weigh against a finding of fair use:
In order to enable the full-text search function, the

Libraries, as we have seen, created digital copies of all the
books in their collections. Because it was reasonably
necessary for the HDL to make use of the entirety of the
works in order to enable the full-text search function, we
do not believe the copying was excessive.
2014 WL 2576342, at *8 (footnotes omitted). Other courts have come to the same
conclusion. See, e.g., Google Books, 954 F. Supp. 2d at 292 (copying and digitizing
entirety of books to facilitate full-text search function “critical to the functioning of
Google Books”); Vanderhye, 562 F. 3d at 642 (copying of entire essays to create
digitized database to detect plagiarism did not weigh against fair use); Perfect 10,
508 F. 3d at 1165 (“The fact that Google incorporates the entire Perfect 10 image
into the search engine results does not diminish the transformative nature of
Google’s use.”); Kelly, 336 F.3d at 821 (“It was necessary for Arriba to copy the
entire image” because copying only part of the image would “reduc[e] the usefulness
of the visual search engine”).
TVEyes’ capture and index of the entirety of each of the 19 Works-in-Suit was
reasonably necessary—indeed, unavoidable—to accomplish its fair use purposes as
described supra, Section II. TVEyes captured each of the 19 Works-in-Suit in its
41
entirety to: (1) create a comprehensive, electronic database of broadcast content; (2)
render that content full-text searchable; and (3) allow users to conduct research
regarding particular search terms, ranging from the frequency of mentions to where
they occurred to how they occurred. (SUF ¶¶ 74-75.) To provide its full-text search
function, it was necessary to copy the entirety of the Works-in-Suit; otherwise, the
database would be incomplete and have reduced utility. (Id. ¶ 75). Additionally,
TVEyes serves an important public interest in making important factual

information available to users. See Swatch, 2014 WL 2219162, at *14 (“the use of
the entire recording was reasonable in light of its purpose of disseminating
important financial information”); Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg
L.P., 861 F. Supp. 2d 336, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Hellerstein, J.) (public interest
“better served by the dissemination of that information in its entirety”).
That TVEyes allows users to access snippets of video does not weigh against
a finding of fair use, for multiple reasons. First, as noted above, access to the actual
video is necessary to provide to convey the full meaning and context surrounding
the keyword mention. See Swatch, 2014 WL 2219162, at *10 (“[T]he sound
recording conveys information that a transcript or article cannot.”).
Second, any snippets played were not substantial portions of the Works-in-
Suit. The average play length of the snippets associated with the Works-in-Suit
was 53.4 seconds. (SUF ¶ 80). More than 85% of the plays were shorter than 60
seconds, 76% were less than 30 seconds, and 51% were less than 10 seconds. (Id.
¶ 81). By any measure, the snippets constitute a fractional amount of the overall
Works-in-Suit. TVEyes’ provision of these snippets was thus not excessive in light
of the need to provide sufficient context about the keyword mention to serve the
user’s particular purpose. See Swatch, 2014 WL 2219162, at *13 (recognizing need
for sufficient context when facts are disseminated).
42
Third, snippets of the Works-in-Suit accessed by TVEyes’ users were
generated automatically by TVEyes’ standard mathematical algorithm, which
selects the start point of the snippet 14 seconds before the term queried by the user.
(SUF ¶ 18, 82.) As a result, any snippets of the Works-in-Suit are closely and
reasonably tailored to the user’s research objectives. Further, TVEyes did not make
the entirety of any of the Works-in-Suit available to users; rather, the maximum
that could ever be played is ten minutes, and none were played for even close to that
long. (Id. ¶ 70); see Google Books, 954 F. Supp. 2d at 292 (“Significantly, Google
limits the amount of text it displays in response to a search.”).
Fourth, all clips generated by TVEyes’ primary search functions, “Watch
Terms” and “Power Search,” are entirely content-neutral—they do not correlate to
the structural elements of the broadcasts, such as segments based on a topic, or to
the most “important” portions of the broadcasts, such as the lead stories or
headlines.11 (SUF ¶ 40). TVEyes does not create headlines for snippets, favor a
“lede,” or undertake any other activity to favor certain content over other content;
thus, TVEyes cannot be considered to have taken the “heart” of any of the Works-in-
Suit—something that Fox refused to even identify. (Id.).
D. TVEyes’ Service Has No Negative Effect on Any Cognizable

Market for the Works-in-Suit and Provides a Tremendous
Public Benefit
Finally, the fourth fair-use factor considers “the effect of the use upon the
potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” § 107(4). This factor
“requires a balancing of [1] the benefit the public will derive if the use is permitted
11 In contrast, the starting point of all video clips on the Fox Website are
predetermined, beginning at the opening of a particular “story” and ending at the
close of that “story.” If, for example, a Fox Website visitor was interested only in a
word that appeared at the 8-minute mark, she would still be taken to the beginning
of that segment. To this end, the Fox Website is not reasonably tailored to
providing visitors with the ability to conduct keyword research. (SUF ¶ 103.)
43
and [2] the personal gain the copyright owner will receive if the use is denied.” Bill
Graham, 448 F.3d at 613 (quotations omitted).
Crucially, this factor “is concerned with only one type of economic injury to a
copyright holder: the harm that results because the secondary use serves as a
substitute for the original work.” HathiTrust, 2014 WL 2576342, at *9 (citing
Campbell, 510 U.S. 591). Thus, “any economic ‘harm’ caused by transformative
uses does not count because such uses, by definition, do not serve as substitutes
for the original work.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Bill Graham, 448 F.3d at 615
(“Since [defendant’s] use of [copyrighted] images falls within a transformative
market, [plaintiff] does not suffer market harm due to the loss of license fees.”);
Castle Rock Entm’t, 150 F.3d at 145 (“The more transformative the secondary use,
the less likelihood that the secondary use substitutes for the original.”).
Fox cannot manufacture an injury by claiming that it has in the past, or will
in the future, seek licensing fees from media-monitoring services to use Fox content.
“[A] copyright holder cannot prevent others from entering fair use markets merely
by developing or licensing a market for parody, news reporting, educational or other
transformative uses of its own creative work. [C]opyright owners may not preempt
exploitation of transformative markets ….” Bill Graham, 448 F.3d at 614-15
(citation and quotations omitted, alteration in original).
Finally, it bears repeating that the Court’s analysis must be limited to the
effect of TVEyes’ use upon the potential market for or value of “the copyrighted
work,” § 107(4), i.e., the 19 Works-in-Suit. While the Court may consider whether
“unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by [TVEyes] would
result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market for the original
work,” that inquiry still focuses upon “the original work,” i.e., the Works-in-Suit.
Swatch, 2014 WL 2219162, at *14 (quoting Campbell, 510 U.S. at 590).
44
1. TVEyes Does Not Act as a Substitute for the Works-in-

Suit
TVEyes captured each of the 19 Works-in-Suit after they were broadcast on
FNC to create a comprehensive keyword-searchable database, that allowed users to
play, edit or download snippets of the Works-in-Suit. (SUF ¶¶ 74-75.) The record
contains no evidence that any of these features are, either actually or potentially, a
substitute for the Works-in-Suit. And because TVEyes’ use of the Works-in-Suit is
highly transformative, by definition there is no market substitution. See
HathiTrust, 2014 WL 2576342, at *9.
Fox cannot argue that TVEyes’ text-searchable database has any effect on the
market for or value of the Works-in-Suit, as Fox does not offer, and has no plans to
offer, a media-monitoring service such as TVEyes. (SUF ¶¶ 93, 125.) And, in any
case, “the full-text search function does not serve as a substitute for the [works] that
are being searched.” HathiTrust, 2014 WL 2576342, at *10. The remainder of this
section of the brief therefore addresses whether TVEyes users’ ability to play and
save snippets of video from search-results affects the market for the Works-in-Suit.
It does not.
a. TVEyes Does Not Affect Fox’s Revenues from Cable

Company Licenses or Advertising Partners
The primary market for the Works-in-Suit is cable companies and
advertisers, who pay Fox a royalty for access to Fox-produced content or to
advertise during commercial breaks in Fox programming, including the Works-in-
Suit. This market is unaffected by TVEyes’ service, which records and indexes
content only after it is licensed to and broadcast by cable companies. There is no
evidence that Fox lost any revenue from any actual or potential cable company
licensees or advertisers from TVEyes’ capture and provision of snippets of the 19
Works-in-Suit (nor could there conceivably be any such effect).
45
b. TVEyes Does Not Affect the Secondary Market for

Public Performances Licenses for the Works-in-Suit
Both directly and through its exclusive licensee ITN Source, Fox licenses
footage from its programming to incorporate into new works, such as television
shows, films, advertisements, video games, electronic-books, and similar projects,
that are then shown to the public. (SUF ¶¶ 115, 117.) Fox also issues licenses to
third parties to publicly perform clips of Fox-owned footage on their websites. (Id.)
To date, however, neither Fox nor ITN Source has earned any revenue from directly
licensing any of the 19 Works-in-Suit to third parties for use in connection with new
works or for display on their websites. (Id. ¶ 116). Thus, there has been no market
substitution. While Fox may choose to license the Works-in-Suit, or portions
thereof, to third parties for public performance in the future, TVEyes does not
substitute for that potential market for several reasons.
First, the Works-in-Suit were accessible on TVEyes only for 32 days after the
initial broadcast—none of the Works have been available outside that window. (Id.
¶ 76). Thus, no future use by TVEyes could interfere with any future licensing by
Fox. The limited availability of the Works-in-Suit on TVEyes after broadcast
undermines any argument that TVEyes’ service is a substitute for Fox’s public-
performance licensing business.
Second, TVEyes’ contract with its subscribers prohibits the use of clips for
any purpose other than internal use, including public performance, and clients are
repeatedly reminded of this restriction, including every time they download a
snippet of video. (Id. ¶¶ 7-9.) Thus, while there are seven clips that remain on
TVEyes’ servers, any public performance of these seven clips would necessarily
breach their contract with TVEyes. Because any licensing activity by Fox is for the
purpose of public performance, and because TVEyes does not permit public
performance of any clips gathered, TVEyes does not usurp Fox’s potential licensing
46
market. In any event, there is no evidence that any of the Works-in-Suit, or
portions thereof, were publicly performed by a TVEyes user in violation of her
contract.
Third, Fox’s licensees seek to use Fox content for entirely different purposes
than TVEyes’ clients. As noted above, TVEyes’ contract and policies limit any use of
clips to internal research and analysis. (Id.)
(Id. ¶ 116). This is not surprising, given that use of a clip for internal research and
analysis is fair use and does not require a license in the first place. Cf. Bill
Graham, 448 F.3d at 614 (“A copyright holder cannot prevent others from entering
fair use markets merely by developing or licensing a market for … transformative
uses of its own creative work.”).
c. TVEyes Does Not Deprive Fox of Revenue From Use

of the Works-in-Suit Online
Finally, Fox alleges that TVEyes substitutes for users watching Fox
programming on the Fox Websites or the websites of its licensees. The record,
however, supports the opposite conclusion, as Fox introduced no evidence that users
who played portions of the Works-in-Suit on TVEyes otherwise would have visited
the Fox Website, or any other Fox-authorized website, to independently search for
and view any clips from the Works-in-Suit. Indeed, there are multiple, material
differences between the two that establish that market substitution is absent as a
matter of law.
First, the crux of TVEyes’ service is that it is automated, enabling users to
monitor unlimited Watch Terms on an unlimited number of stations, 24 hours a
day, seven days a week. Once a user selects a Watch Term, TVEyes periodically
searches for this word automatically, without the user ever having to manually
47
conduct another search. (SUF ¶¶ 21, 23). TVEyes can email the user whenever
any Watch Term is mentioned, alerting the user to the existence of a clip containing
the Watch Term. In contrast, neither Fox nor its licensees offer continuous,
automated searches of pre-selected terms, nor do they email the user whenever that
term is mentioned. (Id. ¶¶ 28, 100-109). This difference is critical, as there is no
evidence that, if TVEyes did not exist, its users would endeavor to undertake
repeated manual searches of the Fox Website and its partners, one by one, for the
dozens (or hundreds) of keywords they desire to track, multiple times every day.
Fox’s assumption that TVEyes’ users would have searched for the same keywords
on its or another’s website is thus rank speculation. See Sony, 464 U.S. at 453-54
(time shifting was fair use because the copyright owners’ “prediction that live
television or movie audiences will decrease” was “speculative”) (quotations omitted).
Second, visitors to the Fox Website are bound by the site’s Terms of Use,
which restrict the use of the site’s content to “personal use only and may not be used
for commercial purposes unless you receive prior written authorization from Fox
News.” (SUF ¶ 114). While the Fox Website prohibits commercial use, TVEyes
permits only commercial use—it does not provide subscriptions for personal use.
Thus, the markets are mutually exclusive.
Third, to enable its clients to efficiently and effectively monitor broadcast
media, TVEyes must record everything that is broadcast, exactly as it was
broadcast, and create a comprehensive database that is searchable by keyword.
(Id. ¶¶ 3, 13, 18, 44.) By contrast, as Fox concedes, it does not make every portion
of every broadcast on the FNC or FBN available on the Internet. (Id. ¶ 101.)
Accordingly, any search results obtained by running keyword searches on the Fox
Website or its partners are necessarily incomplete. It is thus not possible to use the
Fox Website to be assured of how many times a particular keyword was mentioned
on FNC, or to obtain a complete understanding of how a particular subject was
48
covered on the air in a given period of time, which is why clients use TVEyes. See,
Rose Decl. ¶ 27, Ex. WW (e.g., “Fox News has spent just over 10 minutes covering
the 13 court decisions in favor of marriage equality since Windsor”). Even if Fox
decided to make available every single second of its television shows on its website,
Fox does not include the commercials that aired on FNC or FBN—thus, it is not
possible to use the Fox Website to track or evaluate the political advertising or
study the relationship between Fox programming and the commercial advertising
that supports it. See id ¶ 18, Ex. NN (the Romney ads “are still airing in multiple
markets, according to TVEyes, a media monitoring service”). The only way to be
assured of complete accuracy of what was aired on FNC, FBN, or any other major
network, is to use a service that captures, indexes and provides search capability for
everything spoken or shown.
Fourth, in addition to being incomplete, the video segments that are available
on the Fox Website and its partners are materially different from what is broadcast
on FNC and FBN. Video segments from FBN on the Fox Website, for example, do
not contain the news ticker graphic that was included in the actual telecast, which
displays (1) the time of the broadcast, (2) the station logo, and (3) information about
financial markets (including the Dow Jones Industrial Average), stock prices, and a
running ticker of financial news. (SUF ¶ 111). Likewise, video segments from FNC
on the Fox Website do not include the news ticker graphic that was included in the
actual telecast, which displays the station logo and a ticker reporting the news. (Id.
¶ 112.) Thus, if a user is interested in researching the relationship between the
contents of the news ticker and what was said on FNC or FBN, such information
could not be gathered from Fox. In addition, Fox sometimes purposely changes the
video segments made available on its website from what had been aired. For
example, Fox recently came under fire for using an incorrect graphic during a story
about the ferry disaster in Korea; Fox removed the video from its website and
49
assured viewers that the graphic would be “corrected” on its website. (Id. ¶¶ 113.)
The Fox Website cannot guarantee the accuracy of what was actually broadcast.
TVEyes can.
Fifth, because the Fox Website is designed for entertainment, not research
(Rose Decl. ¶ 12, Ex. HH (Fox Website is for “personal enjoyment and
entertainment” and “solely for [] personal, non-commercial use”), the video
segments available on the Fox Website lack basic contextual information about the
footage, such as the air time and show title. (SUF ¶ 105). Such information is
essential to TVEyes’ users, who can access snippets to research the context in which
their keyword was mentioned. In addition, the Fox Website offers limited search
functionality—for example, users cannot set a date range when conducting a search
on the Fox Website, nor use advanced Boolean connections such as “&” in
conducting a search. (Id. ¶ 109). Further, a search query returns a maximum of
only 510 results. (Id. ¶ 110). Finally, the Fox Website does not offer any of the
analytics that TVEyes makes available, such as demographics, market share, heat
maps, term frequency, or broadcast range. (Id. ¶¶ 106-107).
Sixth, while TVEyes’ clips always begin 14 seconds prior to the user’s query
term, each video segment on the Fox Website has a predetermined beginning and
ending, based on a particular topic or story, and is pre-edited to a length that
corresponds to the start and end point around the particular discussion. (Id. ¶ 103.)
As a result, if a user tries to search the Fox Website for a particular word, she must
watch the entire segment or try to scroll through irrelevant portions to somehow
find her keyword. Because TVEyes’ clips always begin within the first 14 seconds of
the mention, it is a much more efficient research tool. (Id. ¶ 18.)

Seventh, the Fox Website cannot be used to monitor Fox News, because it is
controlled by Fox News. (Id. ¶ 99.) There is an inherent conflict of interest
between Fox and those who monitor it. This conflict is most obvious when
50
journalists use TVEyes to publicly criticize Fox News. See, e.g., Rose Decl. ¶ 27, Ex.
WW (e.g., HUFFINGTON POST, Jan 9, 2014: “Fox News Downplayed Chris Christie
Scandal All Day”; BUSINESS INSIDER, July 11, 2011” “Fox News Has Only Reported
On The Murdoch Phone-Hacking Scandal 14 x In 5 Days”; MEDIA MATTERS, June 4,
2014: “On Fox, The Gay Marriage Revolution Has Not Been Televised”). A conflict
of interest also exists when organizations use TVEyes to give feedback to the press.
For example, the White House has used TVEyes to criticize Fox’s reporting, see
Anten Decl. ¶ 23, Ex. EEE (White House to Fox: “This is not even close to a
balanced piece”), and Governor Scwarzenegger has used TVEyes to obtain an
official correction, see id. ¶ 22, Ex. DDD (“We had expected a clarification
somewhere on the network but never saw one”). Because Fox has complete control
over the contents of its website, and can alter or remove the content posted at any
time, for any reason, without explanation or notice, it cannot be relied upon as a
neutral, complete and accurate source for monitoring. Only a third party that
agnostically records everything that is broadcast, exactly as it was broadcast, can
serve this purpose. TVEyes does so.
* * *
For these reasons and more, TVEyes cannot be said to affect the market for
Fox’s own purported provision of segments. 12 Because TVEyes is not a market
“substitute” for the Works-in-Suit, the fourth factor heavily favors TVEyes.
2. TVEyes Provides a Tremendous Benefit to the Public
Even if TVEyes did affect the market for the Works-in-Suit (which it did
not), TVEyes nonetheless provides significant benefits to the public that far
12 This outcome is also supported by logic—if TVEyes truly was a substitute for the
Fox Website, a user interested in watching a clip from FNC would do so for free
rather than pay $500 a month to TVEyes to watch it.
51
outweigh the gain, if any, that Fox “will receive if the use is denied.” Bill Graham,
448 F.3d at 613. The benefits are manifold.
First, TVEyes has created a repository of information that can be accessed
for research on a previously impossible scale. Using TVEyes, clients can efficiently
sift through the daily deluge of television content from numerous, disparate sources
to instantly discover information relevant to them. TVEyes allows users to monitor
1,400 channels, which continuously capture more than 27,000 broadcast hours
every single day, instead of conducting endless, constant searches on thousands of
websites, where the content may not even be available. (SUF ¶¶ 15, 44-46.) And
even then, TVEyes provides significant educational, research benefits through its
comparative analyses of keyword frequencies, distribution, and trends. Without
TVEyes, or a service like it, there would be no other way for users to discover, gain
access to, and efficiently review this information. (Id. ¶ 46).
Second, TVEyes serves the public interest by facilitating access to news
made by Fox. Today, the manner in which news organizations like Fox report news
is often news in its own right, separate and distinct from the underlying news being
reported. (SUF ¶¶ 120-122.) In other words, Fox does not merely report the news,
often it is the news. See, e.g., (Rose Decl ¶26-27, Exs., VV-WW; (e.g. HUFFPOST
MEDIA, June 4, 2014: “Fox Makes Disgusting Comment About Bowe Bergdahl’s
Father”; RAW STORY, May 25, 2014: “Fox News Expert Suggests Homosexual
Impulses Triggered Calif. Mass Shooting”; WASHINGTON POST, Oct. 7, 2013: “Fox &
Friends Fails On Obama-Muslim Museum Connection: No Surprise Here”)).
Further, many national media outlets have journalists dedicated to “meta-news”—
that is, covering how the media covers the news. See, e.g., Erik Wemple,
WASHINGTON POST, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/ (“A reported
opinion blog on news media.”). Major television networks—including FNC—also
have programs dedicated to media analysis. See, e.g., #mediabuzz (FNC broadcast),
52
available at http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/media-buzz/index.html (“Our new media
program analyzes the coverage of a wide range of topics ….”); Reliable Sources
(CNN broadcast), available at http://reliablesources.blogs.cnn.com/ (“Now more than
ever, the press is a part of every story it covers”).
Indeed, several of the statements made in the Works-in-Suit at issue here
were themselves newsworthy, independent of the underlying story being covered—
and these FNC broadcasts were then covered by other news stations. (Rose Decl.
¶ 14, Ex. JJ (e.g., MEDIAITE, Nov. 1, 2012: “Fox’s The Five Hosts: Post-Hurricane
Sandy Gas Lines Are ‘Carter-Esque,’ Bad For Obama”; WASHINGTON POST, Dec. 10,
2012: “Will George Zimmerman Regret Hannity Interview?”). TVEyes’ service thus
greatly facilitates the public’s access to the news made by Fox on its broadcasts
every day, functioning as the source for creating a new news story. Just as the
Second Circuit recognized that “Bloomberg was simply revealing the newsworthy
information of what Swatch Group executives had said,” Swatch, 2014 WL 2219162,
at *8, TVEyes functions to “reveal the newsworthy information of what [FNC and
FBN] had said,” id.; see also Feist, 499 U.S. at 348 (“facts … [such as] news of the
day … may not be copyrighted and are part of the public domain available to every
person.”) (quotations omitted).
Third, TVEyes furthers the public interest by facilitating criticism of Fox—a
fundamental First Amendment value. Without TVEyes (or services like it), the
public could not efficiently review content broadcast on FNC, exactly as it was
broadcast on FNC, for the purpose of commenting on or criticizing Fox.
(SUF ¶¶ 117-118.) Further, would-be critics and commentators cannot use
content from the Fox Website to criticize Fox because, as noted above, that content:
(1) is exclusively controlled by Fox; (2) is incomplete; (3) does not accurately reflect
53
exactly what was broadcast; and (4) has limited search functionality that interferes
with the ability to search for and find content. (Id. ¶¶ 100-114.) In contrast, there
is tremendous value in having a disinterested third party capture and index all
content as it aired, make it searchable, provide analytic tools, and provide snippets
for purposes consistent with fair use.
For example, Media Matters—a TVEyes client—is a highly trafficked website
that systematically monitors a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and
internet media outlets for conservative misinformation, which directs a substantial
portion of its monitoring and criticism towards Fox. (Id. ¶ 61.) Media Matters can
best serve its role to the public as a media watchdog, and lay the groundwork for
substantive political debate, because it can efficiently and affordably research and
compare broadcast content via TVEyes. For example, Media Matters reported that
“Fox News Underreported Sexual Assault In The Military,” as compared to MSNBC
and CNN, using TVEyes to conduct the analysis. (Rose Decl. ¶ 15, Ex. JJ). This
undeniably benefits the public interest and the core principles underlying the First
Amendment.
Cable news shows about the news media’s coverage of the news, and media
watchdogs that criticize and expose what they deem bias and misinformation,
demonstrate the extent to which news reporting is the subject of legitimate and
widespread political debate. Denying TVEyes the ability to make excerpts of Fox
broadcasts available to subscribers for research—especially for research that results
in criticism of Fox—elevates Fox’s rights to exclusive ownership and control over
the public’s right to continue to access information and effectively engage in
political discourse. There is a public benefit to—and a First Amendment interest

in—giving the public the means to carry on this conversation on its own terms.
Since TVEyes is essential to this end, this Court should hold that its use is fair.
54
E. Weighing the Fair Use Factors, Along with Other Relevant

Considerations, TVEyes’ Use Is Fair
Ultimately, “the various non-exclusive statutory factors are to be weighed
together, along with any other relevant considerations, in light of the purposes of
the copyright laws.” Google Books, 954 F. Supp. 2d at 293. Here, the relevant
considerations weigh heavily in favor of fair use: (1) TVEyes’ use of the Works-in-
Suit is transformative in that they are used for a different function and purpose
than the original work; (2) TVEyes offers the important public benefit of conveying
factual information, promoting the goal of accuracy, not piracy; (3) the Works-in-
Suit are highly factual and already published; (4) TVEyes uses no more of the
Works-in-Suit than necessary to accomplish its fair-use goals: TVEyes must use the
entirety of the works to create a functional search database and TVEyes provided
clients with access to small portions of the Works-in-Suit that were narrowly
targeted to the user’s search; and (5) TVEyes does not act as a substitute for the
Works-in-Suit and, in any event, the public benefit of the use far outweighs any
gain to Fox.
The ultimate question before the Court is “whether the copyright law’s goal of
promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts would be better served by
allowing the use than by preventing it,” Bill Graham, 448 F.3d 605 at 608. TVEyes
furthers fundamental First Amendment protections by allowing users to research
what was said on television, without the danger that the source will withhold,
delete or alter that information. While Fox seeks to control what parts of its
broadcast may and may not be accessible to the public, such control frustrates
TVEyes’ purpose of allowing people to monitor the media. Cf. N.Y. Times Co. v.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 305 (1964) (Goldberg, J., concurring) (“sunlight is the most
powerful of all disinfectants”) (quotations and citation omitted).
55
Weighing all of these considerations together, the Court should find that
TVEyes’ particular use of Fox broadcasts—both in their entirety for the purpose of
creating a comprehensive, searchable database, and in providing targeted snippets
in response to specific queries—is fair.
III. FOX’S “HOT NEWS” MISAPPROPRIATION CLAIM IS BOTH

PREEMPTED AND MERITLESS
Fox’s New York state-law claim for “hot news” misappropriation 13 —a tort
that is rarely recognized, and only in circumstances that are essentially identical to
those of International News Service v. Associated Press (“INS”), 248 U.S. 215 (1918),
should be rejected, both because it is preempted by the Copyright Act and, in any
event, Fox has failed to introduce evidence sufficient to support such a claim.
A. Fox’s “Hot News” Misappropriation Claim Is Preempted by the

Copyright Act
To determine whether a state-law “hot news” misappropriation claim is
preempted by the Copyright Act, courts in this Circuit apply a two-pronged test.
See Barclays Capital, Inc. v. TheFlyontheWall.com, Inc. (“Fly”), 650 F.3d 876, 892
(2d Cir. 2011). A claim is preempted if: (1) the claim seeks to vindicate legal or
equitable rights that are equivalent to one of the bundle of exclusive rights already
protected by the Copyright Act; and (2) the work in question is of the type of works
protected by the Copyright Act. Id. Where both prongs of the preemption test are
satisfied, courts will then apply the “extra element test” to determine whether the
claim should nonetheless survive preemption. This test asks whether “an ‘extra
element’ is ‘required instead of or in addition to the acts of reproduction,
performance, distribution or display, in order to constitute a state-created cause of
13 In a letter to TVEyes’ counsel dated August 26, 2013, counsel for Fox stated that
Counts II and III of the Complaint are brought under New York state common law.
(Rose Decl. ¶ 31, Ex. AAA).
56
action,’” to ascertain whether the claim is qualitatively different from a copyright
claim. Nat’l Basketball Ass’n v. Motorola, Inc. (“NBA”), 105 F.3d 841, 850 (2d Cir.
1997) (quoting Computer Assoc. Int’l v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 716 (2d Cir. 1992)).
If so, “then the right does not lie within the general scope of copyright, and there is
no preemption.” Id.
The two seminal cases of this Circuit addressing “hot news” misappropriation
are Fly and NBA. In both Fly and NBA, the Second Circuit recognized an extremely
narrow “hot news” exception to the rule that claims of misappropriation under New
York common law arising from the copying of the plaintiff’s materials are
preempted by federal copyright law. See Fly, 650 F.3d at 896 (“The NBA panel
repeatedly emphasized the ‘narrowness’ of the ‘hot news’ tort.”); NBA, 105 F.3d at
852 (“[O]nly a narrow ‘hot news’ misappropriation claim survives preemption.”).
This exception applies only to allegations of misappropriation that mirror the facts
of INS. See NBA, 105 F.3d at 845 (“a ‘hot-news’ INS-like claim survives
preemption,” but noting that prior panels have come to this conclusion “only
begrudgingly”) (citations omitted).
Here, Fox cannot prove any of the elements of an “INS-type non-preempted
claim,” let alone all of them. Accordingly, its “hot news” claim is preempted by
§ 301 of the Copyright Act. Fly, 650 F.3d at 902 (“hot news” claim was preempted
by Copyright Act because defendant did not free-ride); NBA, 105 F.3d at 854 (same).
1. Fox Has Not Identified Any Particular Piece of Exclusive,

Time-Sensitive “Hot News” That Was Misappropriated
As a threshold matter, Fox has not identified any specific piece of time-
sensitive “hot news” that TVEyes allegedly misappropriated; rather, Fox identified
entire topics, without identifying a specific time or date that a particular piece of
“hot news” was exclusively disseminated by Fox. Because TVEyes has not been
57
placed on notice of the particular “hot news” that it allegedly misappropriated, Fox’s
claim must be dismissed.
In discovery, TVEyes issued an interrogatory to Fox requesting that it
“[i]dentify each piece of ‘hot news’ that TVEyes allegedly misappropriated and, for
each piece of ‘hot news’ identified, describe the efforts Fox News undertook to
gather it.” (Anten Decl. ¶ 33, Ex. OOO.) The entirety of Fox’s substantive response
is as follows:
… Fox News identifies, as the “hot news” that TVEyes

misappropriated, all of the breaking news aired on Fox
News Channel or Fox Business Network between July 31,
2010 and July 30, 2013, including, but not limited to: Fox
News’ May 19–25, 2013 coverage of the Moore, Oklahoma
tornado; Fox News’ April 15–22, 2013 coverage of the
Boston marathon bombing and subsequent manhunt; Fox
News’ April 4–13, 2013 coverage of North Korea tensions;
Fox News’ February 11, 2013 to March 20, 2013 coverage
of the papal resignation and election; Fox News’
December 14–18, 2012 coverage of the Newtown,
Connecticut school shooting; Fox News’ November 15–30,
2012 coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict; Fox News’
October 25 to November 5, 2012 coverage of Hurricane
Sandy; Fox News’ August 26–31, 2012 coverage of
Hurricane Isaac; Fox News’ September 12–20, 2012
coverage of political unrest in the Mideast; Fox News’
August 24–31, 2011 coverage of Hurricane Irene; and Fox
News’ July 4, 2011 to September 4, 2011 coverage of the
Arab Spring uprisings in Libya.
Id. Fox’s identification of the “hot news” that TVEyes allegedly misappropriated is
so specious as to be frivolous, warranting outright dismissal of this claim.
First, Fox merely identifies the subject of its “hot news” claim as “all of the
breaking news” that aired on FNC or FBN—a clear tautology—without placing
TVEyes on fair notice of what such “breaking news” would be.
Second, Fox identifies as the substance of its claim entire weeks of its
“coverage” of world events as constituting its protectable “hot news.” For example,
without identifying any particular story or segment that was broadcast, Fox claims
the entirety of its coverage of the Arab Spring uprisings for 63 days is “hot.”
58
Likewise, without identifying any particular story or segment that was broadcast,
Fox claims the entirety of its “coverage” of the papal resignation and election for 43
days is “hot.” Fox even identifies the entirety of nine days of “coverage of political
unrest in the Mideast” as protectable “hot news”—a frustratingly vague claim
considering that, unfortunately, there is almost always political unrest in the
Mideast. At base, Fox seeks to claim that all of its coverage is “hot news.” But Fox
does not, and never has, owned the topics of Hurricane Sandy, the Newtown
shootings, or Israel-Hamas conflict. The Court should reject Fox’s argument that it
can simply name a world event and own every fact reported on it. There is a
difference between “news” and legally protectable “hot news,” but Fox makes no
distinction.
Third, Fox produced no evidence that any of the facts contained in its
“coverage” of these events was first published exclusively by Fox, nor that any such
“facts” were not already available from another source when TVEyes allegedly
misappropriated them. To establish a claim for “hot news,” Fox must identify
specific, time-sensitive facts, that were acquired exclusively by Fox, and were
subsequently published by Fox before any other competing news source. See
BanxCorp v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 596, 612 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
(“Plaintiffs must allege not only that the news was time-sensitive when it was
gathered, but that it was time-sensitive when it was misappropriated”); Silver v.
Lavandeira, 2009 WL 513031, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2009) (rejecting “hot news”
claim where “[t]he same information that was allegedly gathered by Plaintiff
through costly efforts was widely available and published by numerous other
sources on the Internet, generally before it was published by Plaintiff”). Fox,

however, offers no evidence that any of its “coverage” of particular topics was time-
59
sensitive, nor that the facts uncovered were published exclusively by Fox and no
other outlet.14
Even if Fox could establish that it was the first news outfit to report a
particular piece of news, that information would lose its time-sensitive value as
soon as other news networks independently acquired and disseminated it. See
Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of Am., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 204, 209 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
(“This doctrine creates a narrow quasi property right in news, which as facts ‘may
not be copyrighted,’ only as against business competitors and only until its
commercial value as ‘hot news’ has passed.”) (citing Fin. Info., Inc. v. Moody’s
Investors Serv. Inc., 808 F.2d 204, 207 (2d Cir. 1986)). In the age of the 24-hour
news cycle, the time-sensitive value of news is increasingly fleeting. Fox bears the
burden of proving that any of the facts it claims to have exclusively acquired and
reported to the world first were not reported by other news sources before Fox’s
broadcast was captured, indexed, and rendered searchable on TVEyes.
2. TVEyes Does Not “Free Ride” on Fox’s Efforts
Fox cannot establish that TVEyes “free-rides” on Fox’s effort as this element
has been interpreted by this Circuit in Fly and NBA. “Free-riding” was defined in
INS as “‘taking material that has been acquired by complainant as the result of
organization and the expenditure of labor, skill, and money, and which is salable by
complainant for money, and … appropriating it and selling it as [the defendant’s]
own ….’” Fly, 650 F.3d at 903 (quoting INS, 248 U.S. at 239). However, where a
60
defendant provides “attribution” of the factual information, there can be no free-
riding because the defendant has not sold it “as its own.” Id.
Here, far from passing off Fox’s content as its own, TVEyes specifically
attributes all broadcast content made accessible to subscribers to its source,
including FNC an FBN content. (SUF ¶ 126). That is in many respects the whole
point of the service. For example, to the extent that the FNC and FBN logos are
displayed on the screen when broadcast, those logos also appear, in the same
manner, on TVEyes. For TVEyes to pass these clips on as its own “would be of little
value to either [TVEyes] or its customers,” Fly, 650 F.3d at 903, who are interested
in the fact that their keyword was mentioned on a particular news channel, not on
TVEyes. Under INS, Fly and NBA, TVEyes does not “free-ride” because it does not
take the information broadcast by Fox and redistribute “that news as though it
were ‘breaking’ news of its own.” Fly, 650 F.3d at 903 n.36.
Moreover, TVEyes expends its own resources to capture the content of over
1,400 television and radio broadcasts and, using its own skill and technology,
indexes the content into text databases and delivers relevant search results and
excerpts to its customers in response to user-selected keywords (SUF ¶¶ 3, 13-15.)
All of these unique contributions—capturing, indexing, organizing, and delivering—
occur solely at TVEyes’ expense. See NBA, 105 F.3d 854 (“free riding” not met
where the parties each bore their own costs in collecting and disseminating the
factual information in question).
Finally, by delivering keyword results to customers, TVEyes reports the fact
that a particular keyword was mentioned in a particular Fox broadcast. This, by
definition, is not the same underlying news reported by Fox; it is a new fact, and
therefore cannot constitute free-riding. See Fly, 650 F.3d at 902 (“[Fly] is collecting,
collating and disseminating factual information—the facts that Firms and others in
the securities business have made recommendations with respect to the value of
61
and the wisdom of purchasing or selling securities—and attributing the information
to its source. The Firms are making news; Fly, despite the Firms’ understandable
desire to protect their business model, is breaking it.”) (emphasis in original).
3. TVEyes Is Not a Threat to the Very Existence of Fox’s

Newsgathering Activities
Fox cannot begin to prove that TVEyes represents a “threat to the very
existence” of Fox’s newsgathering activities. NBA, 105 F.3d at 853. As NBA noted,
the “hot news” doctrine remedies the threat to newsgathering posed by
misappropriation that “would destroy the incentive to collect news in the first
place.” Id. The fate of Fox and its news programming, however, is not affected by
the existence of TVEyes’ service, because TVEyes has no plausible impact on Fox’s
two primary sources of revenue: (1) licensing fees collected from cable companies
and (2) revenue generated from adverting broadcast during program breaks.
(Compl. ¶ 20). To the extent Fox argues that TVEyes may threaten Fox’s incentive
to license video clips or host them on the Fox Website, such a position is flawed—
the question is not whether TVEyes may have any conceivable financial effect on a
portion of Fox’s business model; rather, the question is whether the existence of
TVEyes would “destroy” Fox’s “incentive to collect news in the first place.” NBA,
105 F.3d at 853. Because Fox introduced no such evidence, this claim must fail.
4. TVEyes and Fox Are Not “Direct Competitors”
Finally, the “hot news” tort requires that the parties be bona fide direct
competitors, in the way that INS and AP were directly competitive wire services
chasing after identical stories. As Fly noted, “in talking about a “hot-news” INS-like
claim, as we did in [NBA], … we are mindful that the INS Court’s concern was
tightly focused on the practices of the parties to the suit before it: news, data, and
the like, gathered and disseminated by one organization as a significant part of its
62
business, taken by another entity and published as the latter’s own in competition
with the former.” 650 F.3d at 905 (quotations omitted).
Here, TVEyes and Fox do not “directly” compete—Fox is not a media-
monitoring service, and TVEyes does not (and does not purport to) engage in its own
newsgathering efforts. (SUF ¶¶ 93, 125.) There is no evidence that Fox is now, or
plans to be, in the business of capturing, indexing and making searchable by
keyword the content broadcast on over 1,100 television stations, nor that TVEyes is
in the business of providing original programming for consumption on television.
See Fly, 650 F.3d at 914-15 (Raggi, J., concurring) (“The Firms do not aggregate or
distribute other Firms’ Recommendations … [and] Fly does not produce any of its
own recommendations or seek trading commissions”).
(Anten Decl. ¶ 21, Ex.
CCC.)
Nor has Fox introduced any evidence of an actual or potential cable
subscriber no longer subscribing to or watching FNC or FBN because of the
existence of TVEyes. See NBA, 105 F.3d at 853-54 (“With regard to NBA’s primary
products—producing basketball games with live attendance and licensing
copyrighted broadcasts of those games—there is no evidence that anyone regards
SportsTrax or the AOL site as a substitute for attending NBA games or watching
them on television.”). While Fox may claim that Fox and TVEyes “directly compete”
in connection with Fox’s ancillary business of licensing clips, the issue is not
whether there is any competition, but whether there is “direct” competition akin to
two directly competing newswire services, where one party “scoops” the other. This
case does not present such (necessary) facts.
63
B. Fox Cannot Prove “Hot News” Misappropriation On The Merits
Even if Fox’s “hot news” claim was not preempted by the Copyright Act, it
should be rejected on the merits for the same reasons discussed above. The “extra
elements” for a claim of “hot news” misappropriation are also the elements of the
underlying “INS-like” tort, Fly 650 F.3d at 898, and accordingly Fox’s “hot news”
claim fails for lack of proof.
IV. FOX’S “DIRECT COMPETITION” MISAPPROPRIATION CLAIM IS

BOTH PREEMPTED AND MERITLESS
While Fox’s third count alleges a claim of “State Law Misappropriation
(Direct Competition)” (Compl. ¶¶ 71-77), it is not clear such a claim even exists.
TVEyes has uncovered no authority recognizing a claim for “direct competition”
misappropriation under New York law. To the extent that Fox has included such a
claim as a backup catch-all, the claim fails.
A. Fox’s “Direct Competition” Misappropriation Claim Is

Preempted by the Copyright Act
Fox alleges that TVEyes is liable for “direct competition” misappropriation
under New York law because “TVEyes uses Fox News’s work in competition with it”
and is thus “intentionally misappropriating Fox News content and palming it off to
consumers … intentionally misleading the public to believe that there is a
connection between Fox News and TVEyes where there is none.” (Compl. ¶¶ 73-74.)
This claim should be dismissed as a matter of law because binding Second
Circuit precedent directs that state-law unfair competition/misappropriation claims

premised on the copying of a plaintiff’s copyrighted works are preempted by the
Copyright Act. See NBA, 105 F.3d at 852 (New York’s broad misappropriation
doctrine preempted by federal copyright law); Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784
F.2d 44, 53 (2d Cir. 1986) (“Walker’s cause of action for unfair competition is
preempted by the federal copyright laws to the extent it seeks protection against
64
copying of Walker’s book.”); see also 17 U.S.C. § 301(a) (“all legal or equitable rights
that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights” of the Copyright Act “are
governed exclusively by” the Copyright Act).
In this case, there can be no dispute that the first two elements of the
preemption test are met: the essence of Count III is that TVEyes’ alleged copying,
distributing and performing of Fox’s copyrightable content amounts to
misappropriation, all of which are governed by the Copyright Act. (See Compl.
¶¶ 72, 74.) As to the “extra element test,” the Second Circuit has consistently held
that non-“hot news” misappropriation claims grounded in acts of copying are
preempted by the Copyright Act. See, e.g., NBA, 105 F.3d at 852 (“only a narrow
‘hot-news’ misappropriation claim survives preemption for actions concerning
material within the realm of copyright”); Fin. Info., Inc. v. Moody’s Investors Serv.,
Inc., 808 F.2d 204, 208 (2d Cir. 1986) (”We are not persuaded by FII’s argument
that misappropriation is not ‘equivalent’ to the exclusive rights provided by the
Copyright Act.”). In Fly, the Second Circuit reiterated that the broad doctrine of
unfair competition described in Metro. Opera Ass’n, Inc. v. Wagner-Nichols Recorder
Corp., 101 N.Y.S.2d 483 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1950) is preempted by the Copyright Act.
650 F.3d at 896-97. The Court explained:
No matter how “unfair” Motorola’s use of NBA facts and

statistics may have been to the NBA—or Fly’s use of the
fact of the Firms’ Recommendations may be to the
Firms—then, such unfairness alone is immaterial to a
determination whether a cause of action for
misappropriation has been preempted by the Copyright
Act. The adoption of new technology that injures or
destroys present business models is commonplace.
Whether fair or not, that cannot, without more, be
prevented by application of the misappropriation
tort. Indeed, because the Copyright Act itself provides a
remedy for wrongful copying, such unfairness may be
seen as supporting a finding that the Act preempts the
tort.
Fly, 650 F.3d at 896 (emphasis added, footnotes omitted).
65
Fox’s “direct competition” misappropriation claim undeniably is based upon
acts of alleged copying, and therefore is preempted by the Copyright Act—Fox
alleges that TVEyes misappropriated Fox’s “premium programming and content,”
“uses” and “distributes” Fox’s work, and “palm[s] it off” to consumers. (Compl.
¶¶ 72-74.) This is qualitatively equivalent to Fox’s claim for copyright
infringement. See, e.g., Computer Assocs. Int’l, 982 F.2d at 717 (“unfair competition
and misappropriation claims grounded solely in the copying of a plaintiff’s protected

expression are preempted by Section 301”); Durham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630
F.2d 905, 919 (2d Cir. 1980) (“[t]o the extent that Tomy’s unfair competition claim
seeks protection against Durham’s copying,” it is preempted). For similar reasons,
this Court has dismissed such a claim as preempted because the plaintiff “simply
attempted to dress up its claim that [the defendant] had copied [plaintiff’s work].”
Eyal R.D. Corp. v. Jewelex New York Ltd., 784 F. Supp. 2d 441, 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
(Hellerstein, J.).
Finally, to the extent that Fox claims its allegation regarding TVEyes’
purported “palming off” (Compl. ¶ 74) of Fox content constitutes an extra element,
this does not save the claim. “Palming off,” or any other “evidence of
misrepresentation only ‘accentuates’ a misappropriation claim and is not the
‘essence’ of such an action.” Nash v. CBS, Inc., 704 F. Supp. 823, 834 (N.D. Ill.
1989) (quoting INS, 248 U.S. at 242). Thus, in Nash, the court found a
misappropriation claim premised on allegations of misrepresentation of source or
deception to the public to be preempted by the Copyright Act. Id. at 834-35.
Indeed, in a recent case where Fox was the defendant, Fox argued—and the court
found—that a claim for “reverse passing off,” the allegation Fox (at most) makes
here, “does not constitute an extra element for preemption purposes because it is
essentially a claim for unauthorized use of copyrighted material.” Stadt v. Fox
News Network LLC, 719 F. Supp. 2d 312, 322 & nn.67-68 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing
66
cases); see also id., No. 09-cv-7910, Doc No. 18, at 7 (March 5, 2010) (Fox arguing
that plaintiff’s claims of “misappropriation” and “passing off” are “preempted by the
Copyright Act”).
B. Fox’s “Direct Competition” Misappropriation Claim Is

Duplicative of Its “Hot News” Misappropriation Claim
Fox alleges that: (1) Fox “expends considerable time and expense in
producing and distributing” its content (Compl. ¶ 72); and (2) “TVEyes uses Fox
News’s work in competition with it” by “providing an archival clip service in
competition with … ITN Source” and “allow[ing] customers to watch Fox
programming online” (id. ¶ 73). These allegations are indistinguishable from Fox’s
allegations in support of its “hot news” claim. (Compare id. ¶¶ 72, 73 with id.
¶¶ 64, 67.) Fox’s “direct competition” claim is nothing more than a watered-down
version of its “hot news” claim. Because Fox’s “hot news” claim is preempted, so is
its “direct competition” claim.
C. Fox Cannot Prove “Direct Competition” Misappropriation on

the Merits
Even if Fox’s “direct competition” misappropriation claim were not pre-
empted by the Copyright Act, Fox cannot succeed on the merits of its claim.
The “essence” of an unfair competition claim premised upon misappropriation
“is the bad faith misappropriation of the labors and expenditures of another, likely
to cause confusion or to deceive purchasers as to the origin of the goods.’” Eyal R.D.,
784 F. Supp. 2d at 447 (quoting Jeffrey Milstein, Inc. v. Greger, Lawlor, Roth Inc.,
58 F.3d 27, 34-35 (2d Cir. 1995)). Thus, Fox’s misappropriation claim is, at base, an
unfair competition claim. “To recover for unfair competition, a plaintiff must show
either actual confusion in an action for damages or a likelihood of confusion for
equitable relief, and must show that there was bad faith.” Id. at 447 (quotations
omitted). Both elements are required, yet neither is satisfied here.
67
First, there is no evidence in the record of consumer confusion. Fox has not
introduced a consumer survey demonstrating that TVEyes’ customers are likely to
believe that TVEyes’ service emanates from or is approved by Fox, nor is there any
other evidence demonstrating that consumers are deceived or confused about the
origin of TVEyes’ service. TVEyes does not claim to have a business relationship
with Fox, and nothing in the manner in which TVEyes markets and promotes itself
suggests that such a relationship exists. (SUF ¶ 127.)

Second, TVEyes has not acted in bad faith. In determining whether there is
bad faith for purposes of a misappropriation claim, the “only relevant intent is
intent to confuse.” Rockland Exposition, Inc. v. Alliance of Auto. Serv. Providers of
N.J., 894 F. Supp. 2d 288, 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quotations omitted). Fox has not
introduced any evidence that TVEyes intended to confuse the public as to the
existence of a “connection or association” between Fox and TVEyes. TVEyes’
purpose in capturing and indexing Fox’s content is to create a comprehensive text-
searchable database of all broadcast content—that TVEyes captured this content
does not support an inference of bad faith. Cf. Fun-Damental Too, Ltd. v. Gemmy
Indus. Corp., 111 F.3d 993, 1005 (2d Cir. 1997) (“bad faith should not be inferred
simply from the fact of copying”). Indeed, TVEyes attributes the source of any
broadcast content by identifying the channel from which all content originates.
(SUF ¶ 126).
68
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, TVEyes respectfully requests that the Court grant
its motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
Dated: June 26, 2014

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
By /s/ Andrew H. Schapiro

Andrew H. Schapiro
andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com
Todd Anten
toddanten@quinnemanuel.com
Jessica A. Rose
jessicarose@quinnemanuel.com
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor

New York, NY 10010
(212) 849-7000
Attorneys for Defendant TVEyes, Inc.
69

Tveyes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tveyes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tveyes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:13-cv-05315-AKH Document 51 Filed 09/02/14 Page 1 of 76

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC, Case No. 13-CV-5315 (AKH)

DEFENDANT TVEYES’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................... 1

D. TVEyes’ Service Has No Negative Effect on Any Cognizable

A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC,

Nat'l Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola, Inc. ("NBA"),

47 C.F.R. § 79.1 .............................................................................................................. 7

17 U.S.C. § 107 ......................................................................................................passim

17 U.S.C. § 301 ....................................................................................................... 57, 65

47 U.S.C. § 611 ............................................................................................................... 7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ..................................................................................................... 24

Pierre N. Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard,

particular word—any word—was used on television. Using state-of-the-art

short excerpt of the corresponding video.

TVEyes’ service provides an enormous public benefit: there is simply no other

has aired, exactly as it aired, to create a complete and accurate searchable

content it broadcasts. In Fox’s view, TVEyes’ service is unlawful because it

makes previously broadcast news content available to the public.

And Fox carefully curates what content it

of what it previously broadcast. Such restrictions frustrate the purposes of those

who monitor the media.

The doctrine of fair use guarantees that use of copyrighted content—

monitoring service fulfills a fundamentally different purpose than Fox’s

of allowing media, politicians, and the public to function as a watchdog over

million books in their entirety to create a text-searchable database is fair use);

text in results is fair use).

misappropriation as preempted and meritless. TVEyes’ motion for summary

judgment should be granted.

A. Overview of TVEyes’ Service

TVEyes is a media-monitoring service that enables its clients to discover and

response to their queries. (Id. ¶ 3, 13.) Fundamentally, TVEyes is a tool, akin to a

broadcast television content to locate particular information. (Id. ¶ 2-4.) Unlike a

transforms it into a comprehensive, searchable database, to facilitate research. (Id.

day on television. (Id. ¶ 14.)

TVEyes is a subscription-based service that is offered exclusively to

businesses, organizations, and government bodies—e.g., elected officials, non-

offer subscriptions to individuals (except in connection with the operation of a

requirement that is stated in TVEyes’ contract, on its website, and in its

communications with subscribers. (Id. ¶¶ 7-9.)

 Political candidates at the local, state, and national levels, as

 Law enforcement offices,

 Public and private schools

 Press relations organizations,

objectives. For example, journalists use TVEyes to comment on and criticize

¶¶ 3, 13-17.) Unlike a conventional search engine, however, TVEyes does not

broadcast, exactly as it was broadcast. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 13-16.) In so doing, TVEyes offers

a unique and important service by creating from scratch a text-searchable library of

subscribers for research and analysis. (Id. ¶¶ 14-15.)

Using closed-captioned data and speech-to-text technology, TVEyes creates

2 Pursuant to a request by Fox, TVEyes provided Fox’s counsel with confidential

is accomplished by a mathematical algorithm. (Id. ¶ 18.) Beginning the clip only a

than a month old.

TVEyes’ clients can perform an unlimited number of search queries on its

http://www.tveyes.com, clients are first brought to the “Watchlist” page (“Watchlist

be monitored; indeed, some clients monitor hundreds of keywords and phrases

simultaneously. (Id. ¶ 22.)