An appeals court found in favor of Monty Python, directing a ban of further broadcasts by ABC on the basis of violation of the Lanham Act, which could provide protection in the United States similar to that provided by moral rights in Europe, and gave the opinion that the group's copyright had probably also been infringed.

[1] Monty Python's rights under their contract with the BBC had been violated, and in the end this was the basis of the decision in their favor.

Noting that United States law did not include the European concept of "droit moral", or moral right, the court also noted that artists had the right of protection against misrepresentation that would damage their ability to earn money, and that courts had therefore used laws related to contracts or unfair competition to provide such protection.

The court considered that the Lanham Act §43(a) covered the situation where the network had presented a garbled, distorted version of Monty Python's work, and also found "there is a substantial likelihood that, after a full trial, appellants will succeed in proving infringement of their copyright by ABC's broadcast of edited versions of Monty Python programs."

[1] The case has often been presented as the first to discuss false or misleading attribution claims, but in fact the concept has a long pedigree in Anglo-American jurisprudence.

[4] However, the case may be seen as a step towards recognition of moral rights as defined by the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, to which the United States became a signatory in 1989.