## Facts

- A widely publicized 1968 kidnapping involved a young woman abducted from an Atlanta motel and buried alive in an underground capsule before being rescued days later.
- Gene Miller, a reporter who covered the crime, co-authored a nonfiction book about the event, *83 Hours Till Dawn*, published in 1971 and copyrighted; portions were later published in magazines.
- A Universal producer read a condensed version of the book in early 1972, provided it to a screenwriter, and the screenwriter began writing a screenplay.
- Universal attempted to negotiate for film rights but reached no agreement with Miller.
- Universal produced a television movie about the kidnapping, *The Longest Night*, altering names but depicting the same underlying crime; it aired on ABC in 1972.
- Miller sued Universal, ABC, and a local broadcaster for copyright infringement.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by instructing the jury that an author’s “labor of research” is protected by copyright.
2. Whether any instructional error was harmless given other instructions distinguishing unprotectable facts and ideas from protectable expression.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment for Miller and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that an author’s labor in researching facts is not copyrightable subject matter.
- The court concluded the erroneous instruction was not harmless because it shaped the theory on which the case was presented to the jury.
- The court noted the record contained evidence that could support infringement under correct legal standards, but liability must rest on copying protectable expression, not facts or research.

## Legal Principles

- Facts and ideas are not protected by copyright; only original expression is protected.
- “Sweat of the brow” (time, effort, and expense in gathering facts) does not create copyright protection in the facts discovered or in the research effort itself.
- In factual works, protectable material may include the author’s original expressive choices (such as narrative presentation and other original expressive elements), not the underlying historical events.
- A jury instruction that permits infringement liability based on copying “research” or facts, rather than protectable expression, is legal error and can require a new trial when it likely affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the jury was improperly told that an author’s factual research is copyrightable, reaffirming that copyright protects only original expression and leaves facts and investigatory work in the public domain.


Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365 (5th Cir. 1981)