the conclusion of this based on the reasoning that the Constitution no more prevents a State from
requiring respondent to compensate petitioner for broadcasting his act on television than it would
privilege respondent to film and broadcast a copyrighted dramatic work without liability to the
copyright owner. SCOTUS explained that this would be equal if one were to film or broadcast a
prize fight or a baseball game, where the promoters or participants had other plans for
publicizing the event. They used the case
Time, Inc. v. Hill,
433 U. S. 569-579 to support this
ruling. SCOTUS also referred to the case
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
, 376 U. S. 254 (1964),
to establish their grounds that "the press has a privilege to report matters of legitimate public
interest even though such reports might intrude on matters otherwise private," and concluded,
therefore, that the press is also "privileged when an individual seeks to publicly exploit his
talents while keeping the benefits private." SCOTUS used this to justify the idea that airing the
entirety of his performance without Zacchini's consent could be detrimental to his economic
value, leaving nothing for curious fans to desire to experience by attending his performances.
Concurring or dissenting opinions:
Justice Louis F. Powell, Jr., in addition to Justices William
J. Brennan, Jr., and Thurgood Marshall, made the dissenting opinion, "arguing that the recording
was genuinely treated as news and as such Scripps-Howard was constitutionally privileged."
Justice Byron R. White, shared the concurring opinion, "The Court held that Scripps-Howard's
constitutionally privileged free speech did not extend to broadcasting Zacchini's entire
performance without his permission."