Citation. Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 111 S. Ct. 1282, 113 L. Ed. 2d 358, 1991 U.S. LEXIS 1856, 18 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1275, 59 U.S.L.W. 4251, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P26,702, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2217, 121 P.U.R.4th 1, 91 Daily Journal DAR 3580, 18 Media L. Rep. 1889, 68 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1513 (U.S. Mar. 27, 1991)
Brief Fact Summary. When Feist Publications compiled its own white pages, it took 1,309 listings from Rural Telephone Service’s (Plaintiff) white pages and was then sued by Plaintiff for copyright infringement.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A work must be original and possess at least some small degree of creativity in order to be copyrightable.
Issue. Must a work be original and possess at least some small degree of creativity in order to be copyrightable?
Held. (O’Connor, J.) Yes.Â A work must be original and possess at least some small degree of creativity in order to be copyrightable.Â This case involves the interaction of two well-established propositions.Â The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are.Â There is obvious tension between these two propositions.Â The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable. Â Facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, therefore, no one may claim originality to them.Â On the other hand, compilations of facts may possess the required originality.Â Compilations were expressly mentioned in the Copyright Acts of 1909 and 1976.Â Even a directory containing absolutely no protectable written expression, only facts, meets the constitutional minimum for copyright protection if it features an original selection or arrangement.Â If the selection and arrangement are original, these elements of the work are eligible for copyright protection.Â No matter how original the format, though, the facts themselves do not become original through association.Â There is no doubt that Defendant took from the white pages of Plaintiff’s directory a significant amount of factual information.Â The remaining question is whether Plaintiff selected, coordinated, or arranged these uncopyrightable facts in an original way.Â It did not.Â Plaintiff simply took the data provided by its subscribers and listed it alphabetically by surname, which exhibits absolutely no creativity.Â Plaintiff gave enough effort to make the white pages directory useful, but not enough creativity to make it original.Â Therefore, since Plaintiff’s white pages lack originality as required, Defendant’s use of the listings cannot constitute infringement.Â Copyright rewards originality, not effort.Â Reversed.
Discussion. As stated by the Supreme Court, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information expressed by a work.Â This principle, known as the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy, applies to all works of authorship.Â As applied to a factual compilation, assuming the absence of original written expression, only the compiler’s selection and arrangement may be protected; the facts themselves may be copied at will.Â This is the way copyright advances the progress of science and art by encouraging creativity with exclusive rights rewarded for the original creation.