In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor wrote that copyright can apply only to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc.-not to the information itself. It need not be novel it need only possess a "spark" or "minimal degree" of creativity to be protected by copyright. The standard for creativity is extremely low. 8)-that is, to encourage creative expression. The court clarified that the intent of copyright law was not, as claimed by Rural and some lower courts, to reward the efforts of persons collecting information-the so-called " sweat of the brow" or "industrious collection" doctrine-but rather "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" ( U.S. Rural claimed a collection copyright in its directory. … The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable: The ″ Sine qua non of copyright is originality." On what basis may one claim a copyright upon such work? Common sense tells us that 100 uncopyrightable facts do not magically change their status when gathered together in one place. wholly factual information not accompanied by any original expression. "Many compilations consist of nothing but raw data-i.e. "There is an undeniable tension between these two propositions", O'Connor wrote in her opinion. The case centered on two well-established principles in United States copyright law: that facts are not copyrightable, and that compilations of facts can be. It examined the purpose of copyright and explained the standard of copyrightability as based on originality. The ruling of the court was written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. At trial and appeal level the courts followed this doctrine, siding with Rural. Because Rural had placed a small number of phony entries to detect copying, Feist was caught.īefore this case, the substance of copyright in United States law followed the sweat of the brow doctrine, which gave copyright to anyone who invested significant amount of time and energy into their work. Despite Rural's denial of a license to Feist, Feist copied 4,000 entries from Rural's directory. It had licensed the directory of 11 other local directories, with Rural being the only holdout in the region. specialized in compiling telephone directories from larger geographic areas than Rural from other areas of Kansas. The company was under a statutory obligation to compile and distribute a " white pages" phone directory of all its customers free of charge as a condition of its monopoly franchise.įeist Publications, Inc. is a telephone cooperative providing services for areas in northwest Kansas, with headquarters in the small town of Lenora, in Norton County. The "white pages" of a telephone directory The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed. In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. 340 (1991), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright. O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, White, Marshall, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souterįeist Publications, Inc., v. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.Ĭhief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White The white pages of a telephone book did not satisfy the minimum originality required by the Constitution to be eligible for copyright protection, and effort and expenditure of resources are not protected by copyright. 1990) affirmed, full opinion at 1990 U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |