Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc.

Decision Date25 March 1980
Docket NumberNo. 692,D,692
Citation618 F.2d 972
Parties, 1978-81 Copr.L.Dec. 25,146, 6 Media L. Rep. 1053 A. A. HOEHLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., and Michael MacDonald Mooney, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 79-7704.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

James C. Eastman, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellant.

Coudert Bros., New York City (Eugene L. Girden, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Universal City Studios, Inc.

Peter A. Flynn, and Myron M. Cherry, Chicago, Ill. (Cherry, Flynn & Kanter, Chicago, Ill., Hervey M. Johnson, White Plains, N. Y.), and James J. McEnroe, New York City (Watson, Leavenworth, Kelton & Taggert, New York City), for defendant-appellee Michael M. Mooney.

Before KAUFMAN, Chief Judge, TIMBERS, Circuit Judge, and WERKER, District Judge. *

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Chief Judge:

A grant of copyright in a published work secures for its author a limited monopoly over the expression it contains. The copyright provides a financial incentive to those who would add to the corpus of existing knowledge by creating original works. Nevertheless, the protection afforded the copyright holder has never extended to history, be it documented fact or explanatory hypothesis. The rationale for this doctrine is that the cause of knowledge is best served when history is the common property of all, and each generation remains free to draw upon the discoveries and insights of the past. Accordingly, the scope of copyright in historical accounts is narrow indeed, embracing no more than the author's original expression of particular facts and theories already in the public domain. As the case before us illustrates, absent wholesale usurpation of another's expression, claims of copyright infringement where works of history are at issue are rarely successful.

I.

This litigation arises from three separate accounts of the triumphant introduction, last voyage, and tragic destruction of the Hindenburg, the colossal dirigible constructed in Germany during Hitler's reign. The zeppelin, the last and most sophisticated in a fleet of luxury airships, which punctually floated its wealthy passengers from the Third Reich to the United States, exploded into flames and disintegrated in 35 seconds as it hovered above the Lakehurst, New Jersey Naval Air Station at 7:25 p. m. on May 6, 1937. Thirty-six passengers and crew were killed but, fortunately, 52 persons survived. Official investigations conducted by both American and German authorities could ascertain no definitive cause of the disaster, but both suggested the plausibility of static electricity or St. Elmo's Fire, which could have ignited the highly explosive hydrogen that filled the airship. Throughout, the investigators refused to rule out the possibility of sabotage.

The destruction of the Hindenburg marked the concluding chapter in the chronicle of airship passenger service, for after the tragedy at Lakehurst, the Nazi regime permanently grounded the Graf Zeppelin I and discontinued its plan to construct an even larger dirigible, the Graf Zeppelin II.

The final pages of the airship's story marked the beginning of a series of journalistic, historical, and literary accounts devoted to the Hindenburg and its fate. Indeed, weeks of testimony by a plethora of witnesses before the official investigative panels provided fertile source material for would-be authors. Moreover, both the American and German Commissions issued official reports, detailing all that was then known of the tragedy. A number of newspaper and magazine articles had been written about the Hindenburg in 1936, its first year of trans-Atlantic service, and they, of course, multiplied many fold after the crash. In addition, two passengers Margaret Mather and Gertrud Adelt published separate and detailed accounts of the voyage, C. E. Rosendahl, commander of the Lakehurst Naval Air Station and a pioneer in airship travel himself, wrote a book titled What About the Airship?, in which he endorsed the theory that the Hindenburg was the victim of sabotage. In 1957, Nelson Gidding, who would return to the subject of the Hindenburg some 20 years later, wrote an unpublished "treatment" for a motion picture based on the deliberate destruction of the airship. In that year as well, John Toland published Ships in the Sky which, in its seventeenth chapter, chronicled the last flight of the Hindenburg. In 1962, Dale Titler released Wings of Mystery, in which he too devoted a chapter to the Hindenburg. 1

Appellant A. A. Hoehling published Who Destroyed the Hindenburg ?, a full-length book based on his exhaustive research in 1962. Mr. Hoehling studied the investigative reports, consulted previously published articles and books, and conducted interviews with survivors of the crash as well as others who possessed information about the Hindenburg. His book is presented as a factual account, written in an objective, reportorial style.

The first half recounts the final crossing of the Hindenburg, from Sunday, May 2, when it left Frankfurt, to Thursday, May 6, when it exploded at Lakehurst. Hoehling describes the airship, its role as an instrument of propaganda in Nazi Germany, its passengers and crew, the danger of hydrogen, and the ominous threats received by German officials, warning that the Hindenburg would be destroyed. The second portion, headed The Quest, sets forth the progress of the official investigations, followed by an account of Hoehling's own research. In the final chapter, spanning eleven pages, Hoehling suggests that all proffered explanations of the explosion, save deliberate destruction, are unconvincing. He concludes that the most likely saboteur is one Eric Spehl, a "rigger" on the Hindenburg crew who was killed at Lakehurst.

According to Hoehling, Spehl had motive, expertise, and opportunity to plant an explosive device, constructed of dry-cell batteries and a flashbulb, in "Gas Cell 4," the location of the initial explosion. An amateur photographer with access to flashbulbs, Spehl could have destroyed the Hindenburg to please his ladyfriend, a suspected communist dedicated to exploding the myth of Nazi invincibility.

Ten years later appellee Michael MacDonald Mooney published his book, The Hindenburg. Mooney's endeavor might be characterized as more literary than historical in its attempt to weave a number of symbolic themes through the actual events surrounding the tragedy. His dominant theme contrasts the natural beauty of the month of May, when the disaster occurred, with the cold, deliberate progress of "technology." The May theme is expressed not simply by the season, but also by the character of Spehl, portrayed as a sensitive artisan with needle and thread. The Hindenburg, in contrast, is the symbol of technology, as are its German creators and the Reich itself. The destruction is depicted as the ultimate triumph of nature over technology, as Spehl plants the bomb that ignites the hydrogen. Developing this theme from the outset, Mooney begins with an extended review of man's efforts to defy nature through flight, focusing on the evolution of the zeppelin. This story culminates in the construction of the Hindenburg, and the Nazis' claims of its indestructibility. Mooney then traces the fateful voyage, advising the reader almost immediately of Spehl's scheme. The book concludes with the airship's explosion.

Mooney acknowledges, in this case, that he consulted Hoehling's book, and that he relied on it for some details. He asserts that he first discovered the "Spehl-as-saboteur" theory when he read Titler's Wings of Mystery. Indeed, Titler concludes that Spehl was the saboteur, for essentially the reasons stated by Hoehling. Mooney also claims to have studied the complete National Archives and New York Times files concerning the Hindenburg, as well as all previously published material. Moreover, he traveled to Germany, visited Spehl's birthplace, and conducted a number of interviews with survivors.

After Mooney prepared an outline of his anticipated book, his publisher succeeded in negotiations to sell the motion picture rights to appellee Universal City Studios. 2 Universal then commissioned a screen story by writers Levinson and Link, best known for their television series, Columbo, in which a somewhat disheveled, but wise detective unravels artfully conceived murder mysteries. In their screen story, Levinson and Link created a Columbo-like character who endeavored to identify the saboteur on board the Hindenburg. Director Robert Wise, however, was not satisfied with this version, and called upon Nelson Gidding to write a final screenplay. Gidding, it will be recalled, had engaged in preliminary work on a film about the Hindenburg almost twenty years earlier.

The Gidding screenplay follows what is known in the motion picture industry as a "Grand Hotel" formula, developing a number of fictional characters and subplots involving them. This formula has become standard fare in so-called "disaster" movies, which have enjoyed a certain popularity in recent years. In the film, which was released in late 1975, a rigger named "Boerth," who has an anti-Nazi ladyfriend, plans to destroy the airship in an effort to embarrass the Reich. Nazi officials, vaguely aware of sabotage threats, station a Luftwaffe intelligence officer on the zeppelin, loosely resembling a Colonel Erdmann who was aboard the Hindenburg. This character is portrayed as a likable fellow who soon discovers that Boerth is the saboteur. Boerth, however, convinces him that the Hindenburg should be destroyed and the two join forces, planning the explosion for several hours after the landing at Lakehurst, when no people would be on board. In Gidding's version, the airship is delayed by a storm, frantic efforts to defuse the bomb fail, and the Hindenburg is destroyed. The film's subplots involve other possible suspects, including a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
210 cases
  • Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Landa
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 26 Junio 1997
    ...252, 106 S.Ct. at 2512. Although summary judgment is ordinarily disfavored in copyright infringement cases, Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 977 (2d Cir.1980), "when the evidence is so overwhelming that a court would be justified in ordering a directed verdict at tria......
  • Computer Associates Intern., Inc. v. Altai, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 17 Diciembre 1992
    ...theme without employing certain 'stock' or standard literary devices," such expression is not copyrightable. Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 979 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 841, 101 S.Ct. 121, 66 L.Ed.2d 49 (1980). For example, the Hoehling case was an infringe......
  • Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 17 Noviembre 1983
    ...News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 234, 39 S.Ct. 68, 70, 63 L.Ed. 211 (1918), historical facts, Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 841, 101 S.Ct. 121, 66 L.Ed.2d 49 (1980), nor facts of a biographical nature, Rosemont Enterp......
  • Conan Properties, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., 84 Civ. 5799 (RPP).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 19 Abril 1989
    ...permitted `to put "a swift end to meritless litigation" and to avoid lengthy and costly trials'") (quoting Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 977 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 841, 101 S.Ct. 121, 66 L.Ed.2d 49 13 Cf. Deposition of Mimi Shapiro at 215 (Feb. 28, 1985)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Court Declares Emma Thompson Film 'Effie' Does Not Infringe Playwright’s Works
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 3 Abril 2013
    ...competing policy interests. A leading Second Circuit case on historical fiction and copyright is Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. 1980), which held, "the protection afforded the copyright holder has never been extended to history, be it documented fact or expl......
10 books & journal articles
  • The Heart of the Matter: the Property Right Conferred by Copyright - Douglas Y'barbo
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 49-3, March 1998
    • Invalid date
    ...which infringement was not found: Worth v. Selchow & Righter Co., 827 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1987); Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. 1980); Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop, 533 F.2d 87 (2d Cir. 1976); Affiliated Hosp. Prods., Inc. v. Merdel Game Mfg. Co.,......
  • Protecting the Public Domain and the Right to Use Copyrighted Works: Four Decades of the Eleventh Circuit's Copyright Law Jurisprudence
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Journal of Intellectual Property Law (FC Access) No. 29-1, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...Rosemont Enters., Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 366 F.2d 303 (2d Cir. 1966); and then citing Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. 1980)).36. Id. at 1371-72.37. Id. at 1372. 38. Feist, 499 U.S. at 360 (quoting Miller, 650 F.2d at 1369-70).39. Id. at 360-61.40. Id. at......
  • Federal Copyright Law in the Computer Era: Protection for the Authors of Video Games
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 7-02, December 1983
    • Invalid date
    ...is now a possibility under § 301 of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 301 (1976). Cf. Hoeling v. Universal Ci*y Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 980 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 841 (1980) (historical facts and ideas are excluded from federal copyright protection and therefore the sta......
  • Intellectual Property's Lessons for Information Privacy
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 92, 2021
    • Invalid date
    .... . remain 'undisturbed.'" (quoting Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873, 890-91 (2012))). 107. E.g., Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972, 978-89 (2d Cir. 108. E.g., Morrissey v. Procter and Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675, 679 (1st Cir. 1967) (granting summary judgment for defendant......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT