Talk:International News Service v. Associated Press

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International News Service v. Associated Press article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.

Hi. I'm no legal expert, but I'm wondering if the "holding" on this page should be expanded, it seems a bit misleading a present. As the main article says, although the court did decide that news was factual (and therefore not copyrightable) it also decided that "breaking news" had commercial value and therefore INS was guilty of misappropriation. The currently "holding" statement makes it sound like the AP lost. Jjhunt (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed. PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

Most of the citations in this were in Bluebook style. But there were many ^{[citation needed]}s that were not marked. I am reverting the bot change away from Bluebook, inserting template, and putting Cns where needed. I or someone else will fill in the Cns in due course. PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bot changing citation style

As a template (above) indicates, this article on a legal case uses Bluebook citation style. A bot keeps changing the citations to abcde... style. That makes for incorrect citations because the various cites, for example, to -- 248 U.S. at (such and such a page) -- are different from one another (different pages) so that abcde.. format will give the wrong page. I am undoing the bot edit, but this is recurring. Can someone please keep this bot away from legal citations, which it simply cannot handle properly? PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Overruled!

There is an error on this page; although effectively gutted, this case has not been overruled, but rather is still good law given its very narrow fact pattern. 174.215.199.205 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Error: Case Was Never Overruled

This case was actually never overruled. The article suggests that it was overruled and this is in error. Although narrowly construed, it is still good law. The Sears case does not actually overturn it. Someone should correct the article's error. 174.215.199.205 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]