Firm Victory: Federal Judge Clears the Way to Challenge the Sixth Floor Museum's Zapruder Copyright

Firm victory — Javitch Law Office, counsel for the Forum on Open Access to Government Records
Attorney Advertising | Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome

On August 5, 2026, Judge Jane J. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a decision that keeps alive our challenge to one of the strangest copyrights in the country: the Sixth Floor Museum's claim to own Abraham Zapruder's film of the assassination of President Kennedy. The court denied the National Archives' motion to dismiss in full and allowed the heart of our case against the Museum to move forward into discovery. Along the way, it also resolved a novel Freedom of Information Act question with consequences reaching well beyond the Zapruder film. Forum on Open Access to Government Records, Inc. v. Dallas County Historical Foundation d/b/a The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, No. 3:25-CV-2034-B.

What we won

Our client, the Forum on Open Access to Government Records, publishes primary Zapruder records and, in 2025, the book SCAM: The Zapruder Copyright. The Forum contends that the film in the Archives today is not Zapruder's camera original but an altered version, and that a private museum should not be able to wield copyright to keep the public from examining the most important visual record of the assassination.

At this stage of a case, a court accepts a plaintiff's factual allegations as true and decides only whether the claims may proceed. Judge Boyle did not rule on whether the film was in fact altered. What she did rule is that the case can go forward: the Forum's challenge is a real, live dispute, and the Museum cannot hide behind a procedural argument that no one has ever been sued. The court also held, on a question of first impression in this district, that FOIA's 2016 online-posting requirement is judicially enforceable and reaches older, third-party records. Both rulings are wins for our client and for open-government advocates generally.

Why the Museum's "no one has been sued" argument failed

The Museum's central argument was that there was no real dispute for a court to decide. It has never sued the Forum for infringement, it said, so there is nothing to adjudicate. Judge Boyle rejected that. She described what amounts to a closed loop: the Archives refuses to release the frames because of the Museum's copyright; the Museum refuses to grant a license and refuses to withdraw its objection to the Archives' requests; and the Museum disavows ever suing anyone — precisely so that no one can test whether the copyright is valid. Invoking the principle that a rights-holder cannot use "scare-the-customer-and-run" tactics to insulate a claim from review, the court held that a declaratory judgment "may be the Forum's only way to overcome the obstacle." Because the Forum published the book and sells it while the Museum actively asserts the copyright, the court found a genuine controversy ripe for decision.

Four claims survive — including abandonment and fair use — while three were dismissed with a chance to replead, and one for good

The ruling was not a clean sweep, and it is worth being candid about that. The court allowed four claims to go forward: that the Museum's predecessor waived any copyright in the damaged frames it released to the public in 1967; that the copyright was abandoned through decades of non-enforcement in the face of open, large-scale copying; that the book's use of the frames is fair use; and — against the Archives — that the frames must be published online. The court dismissed three other theories (lack of originality, fraud on the Copyright Office, and a defect in the Museum's chain of title) but gave the Forum 14 days to replead them. One theory — that the film's idea and its expression have "merged" and so cannot be owned — was dismissed for good.

Under a little-used 2016 law, the court held that a FOIA requester can compel an agency to post frequently requested records online

The most consequential part of the decision may have nothing to do with Dealey Plaza. Few courts have addressed the question it answers: under a little-used provision of the 2016 FOIA Improvement Act, can a FOIA requester compel an agency to publish frequently requested records on its website?

FOIA has long included a "reading-room" provision requiring agencies to make certain records — including any record that has been requested three or more times — available to the public without anyone having to ask for them. In 2016, Congress amended that provision to require that those records be made available "in an electronic format" — that is, posted online. But two questions were left unresolved, and the Forum needed both answered in its favor.

First: if an agency ignores that duty, can a court order it to post the records online, or can a judge only order the agency to hand copies to the single requester who sued? The D.C. Circuit has held that courts lack that power. The Second and Ninth Circuits have held the opposite. Judge Boyle sided with the Second and Ninth Circuits, holding that FOIA's enforcement provision lets a court do more than order a one-time production — it lets a court stop an agency from withholding records it has an affirmative duty to publish.

Second: does the 2016 online-posting duty reach records created before the digital-FOIA era, and by someone other than the agency? The Archives argued the requirement covers only records an agency itself created after November 1, 1996 — which would conveniently exempt a 1963 home movie. Judge Boyle rejected that reading, holding that the 2016 amendment's plain language requires all qualifying records to be posted online regardless of when, or by whom, they were created; reading it any other way would render the 2016 amendment meaningless.

Having resolved both questions, the court let the Forum's claim to force the frames online move forward. It noted that neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit has addressed these issues, and that it could find no controlling authority on the second one at all — which makes the ruling a rare and potentially useful precedent for anyone trying to pry historical records out of a federal agency, far beyond this case.

The surviving claims now head to discovery, where the Museum and the Archives will finally have to produce their records

The Forum has two weeks to amend the dismissed claims, and the surviving claims head into discovery — where, for the first time, the Museum and the Archives may have to produce records about the copyright and the film's provenance. The question the Museum has spent years avoiding — whether it actually owns an enforceable copyright in the Zapruder film, and whether the public has a right to see the primary record — will now be litigated on the merits.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who owns the copyright to the Zapruder film?

The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, a private museum in Dallas, holds the claimed copyright. The federal government took the physical original film in 1998 under the JFK Records Act and paid the Zapruder family $16 million, but the family retained the copyright and donated it to the Museum in 1999.

What did the court decide on August 5, 2026?

Judge Jane J. Boyle denied the National Archives' motion to dismiss in full and allowed four claims against the Museum and the Archives to proceed: waiver, abandonment, fair use, and a FOIA claim to compel online publication. Three claims were dismissed with leave to replead within 14 days, and one (merger doctrine) was dismissed with prejudice.

Can a FOIA requester force an agency to post records on its website?

In this decision, yes. Judge Boyle held that FOIA's enforcement provision permits a court to order an agency to comply with the "reading-room" duty, as amended by the 2016 FOIA Improvement Act, to post frequently requested records in an electronic format — not merely to hand copies to the individual requester.

Does the 2016 FOIA Improvement Act apply to older records?

The court held that it does. It rejected the Archives' argument that the online-posting duty reaches only records the agency itself created after November 1, 1996, finding that the amendment's plain language covers all qualifying records regardless of when or by whom they were created.

What is the "reading-room" provision of FOIA?

It is the part of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2), requiring agencies to make certain categories of records publicly available without a request — including any record that has been requested three or more times. Since 2016, those records must be made available in an electronic format.

Why does this ruling matter beyond the Zapruder film?

Because few courts have addressed whether the 2016 online-posting duty is judicially enforceable, and none had squarely addressed whether it reaches older, third-party-created records. The decision gives researchers, journalists, and open-government advocates a precedent for compelling agencies to publish historical records online.

Further coverage

Mark Javitch, counsel for the Forum on Open Access to Government Records and the author of SCAM: The Zapruder Copyright, represents the Forum in this litigation. This post is attorney advertising; prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.