Talk:International News Service v. Associated Press

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

Citation style
Most of the citations in this were in Bluebook style. But there were many 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)

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)

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)

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)