Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
113 L. Ed. 2d 358 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
Facts
Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. (Rural) is a public utility in northwest Kansas, required by state regulation to issue an annual updated telephone directory. Rural publishes a typical directory with white pages (alphabetical list of subscribers' names, towns, numbers) and yellow pages, distributing it free but earning revenue from yellow pages ads. Feist Publications, Inc. (Feist) publishes area-wide telephone directories, competing with Rural for yellow pages advertising. Feist approached Rural to license its white pages listings, but Rural refused, motivated by a desire to extend its monopoly. Unable to license, Feist copied 4,935 listings from Rural's directory, verified them, and added information, resulting in 1,309 identical listings, including four fictitious ones Rural had inserted to detect copying. Rural sued Feist for copyright infringement, asserting Feist could not use the information in its white pages. Feist argued the copied information was beyond the scope of copyright protection.
Procedural history
Rural sued Feist for copyright infringement in the District Court for the District of Kansas. The District Court granted summary judgment to Rural, finding telephone directories copyrightable. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the copyright in Rural's directory protected the copied information.
Issue
The legal question is whether the copyright in Rural’s telephone directory protects the names, towns, and telephone numbers copied by Feist. Specifically, the Court considered if the selection and arrangement of facts in Rural's white pages possessed the requisite originality for copyright protection.
Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It held that Rural's white pages lacked the requisite originality for copyright protection, and therefore, Feist's use of the listings did not constitute copyright infringement.
Rule
Copyright protection requires originality, meaning independent creation and at least a minimal degree of creativity. Facts are not copyrightable because they are discovered, not created, and thus lack originality. While factual compilations can be copyrightable, protection extends only to the original selection, coordination, or arrangement of facts, not to the underlying facts themselves. The 'sweat of the brow' doctrine, which rewarded effort in compiling facts, is rejected as it grants a monopoly over facts, contrary to copyright's purpose. To establish infringement, one must prove ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original constituent elements of the work.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.