A.A Hoehling v.

Universal City Studios and Michael Mac Donald Mooney (1980)

Scope of copyright: the idea/expression distinction

Facts:

A.A Hoehling published Who Destroyed the Hindenburg? based on his research in
1962 about the Hindenburg disaster. His book is presented as a factual account, written
in an objective, reportorial style by using investigative reports, published article and
books, and conducted interviews with survivors. He claimed that the Hindenburgs
explosion was the result of a sabotage, rather than an accident and he concluded that
the most likely saboteur is one Eric Sphel, a rigger part of the Hindenburg crew.
According to Hoehling, Spehl had motive, expertise and opportunity to plant the
explosive device to please his ladyfriend, a suspected communist dedicated to exploding
the myth of Nazi invincibility.

Ten years later, Michael MacDonald Mooney, a fiction writer, published his book The
Hindenburg which is more literary than historical. The plot and characters were similar
to Hoehlings research. Mooney attempted to weave symbolic themes through the
actual events surrounding the tragedy. He made use of the dominant themes of the
month of May, the month when the incident happened and several other themes like
nature and technology. Later on, the motion picture rights were granted to Universal
City Studios. It was developed into a screenplay by Nelson Gidding, who had written an
unpublished work on the Hindenburg 20 years earlier.

Mooney acknowledged that he consulted Hoehlings book and that he relied on it for
some details but also asserts that he studied other sources, traveled to Germany and
conducted his own interviews.

Upon learning of Universals plans to release the film, Hoehling instituted an action for
copyright infringement and common law unfair competition. The trial court ruled in
favor of Mooney. Hoehling appealed but the Appellate Court affirmed the previous
decision and found that Hoehlings allegations encompassed material that is non-
copyrightable (historical facts)

Issues:

1. Are interpretations of historical events copyrightable?

Held:

1. NO.
Although the Court recognized that the plots of the two works were similar, there could
be no infringement because of the public benefit in encouraging the development of
historical and biographical works and their public distribution.

The hypothesis that Spehl destroyed the Hindenburg is based on the interpretation of
historical facts and whether or not it originated with Hoehling, is not protected by his
copyright and can be freely used by subsequent authors.

In works devoted to historical bjects, it is the view of the Court that a second author
may make significant use of prior work, so long as he does not bodily appropriate the
expression of another.