You might think that the lawsuit Fox News Channel and anchor Chris Wallace filed last September against Robin Carnahan's Senate campaign no longer was an issue, given that Missouri's Democratic secretary of state lost her race against Republican Rep. Roy Blunt in the election for Missouri's open Senate seat.

You would be wrong, but it's true that the issue isn't exactly urgent. The suit has been set for trial in December.

Two weeks ago, Ms. Carnahan asked the Federal Election Commission for permission to form an independent legal defense fund to raise money for the case. Those costs stand at $85,000 - and are climbing.

The suit involves a Carnahan campaign ad that included 24 seconds of a 2006 interview of Mr. Blunt by Mr. Wallace for "Fox News Sunday." Mr. Wallace also interviewed Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz.

At the time, the three men were vying to succeed Tom DeLay as majority leader of the House. DeLay, a Texas Republican, had resigned after scandals linked him to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Just days before the broadcast, Abramoff had pleaded guilty to several felony counts. DeLay later was convicted of two money-laundering felonies and sentenced to three years in prison. He's appealing the convictions.

House Republicans were divided on whether Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boehner or Mr. Shaddeg would best demonstrate the party's seriousness about ethical reform. Mr. Boehner won the leader's race and is now speaker of the House.

Mr. Wallace conducted admirably tough interviews with all three men. Mr. Blunt's was the toughest, given questions that had been raised about his own ties to lobbyists and the seven years he spent as a close associate of DeLay.

If you cut through the legalese of the lawsuit, the curious case of Fox v. Robin seems to come down to these main points:

• Fox says the Carnahan ad violated a Fox copyright by using 24 seconds of the Blunt interview for campaign purposes. Yet Fox did not sue Sen. David Vittert, R-La., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., or even Mr. Blunt for using Fox News material with Mr. Wallace in their 2010 campaigns.

• Fox says Ms. Carnahan's ad "harms the value of the original work by compromising its apparent objectivity." We question Fox's use of the adjective "apparent" in light of its well-established tilt toward Republican and right-wing causes and candidates. We would argue that the Carnahan ad enhanced the value of the original work by displaying rare actual objectivity.

• The suit claims that the ad invaded Mr. Wallace's privacy and misappropriated his likeness. Mr. Wallace is a network news personality. The ad used a four-year-old clip from the nationally broadcast show he anchors. Mr. Wallace's face appeared on screen for about three seconds. Come on.

 

Political ads for candidates of all parties routinely use clips and quotes from news shows and stories. Use of these excerpts in political and public issue contexts is specifically protected by the fair-use provisions of federal copyright law. Political speech also enjoys the highest degree of First Amendment protection.

Perhaps Fox wants to be aggressive in asserting intellectual property rights, a trend among big corporations. But this is a bizarre case for making that point.

We'd hesitate to call the lawsuit frivolous. Ridiculous is more like it. With a whiff of spite.