Ohio
How Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. applies in Ohio: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Intellectual Property.
Ohio law aligns closely with federal copyright standards regarding originality in copyright protection. The state recognizes that mere facts are not subject to copyright, and thus, the effort required to organize or present those facts must exhibit some creativity to qualify for protection.
In Ohio, as in federal law, copyright protection does not extend to facts; only the author's original expression of those facts is protected.
The court held that a compilation of data without sufficient original expression did not qualify for copyright protection.
The court reinforced that databases that simply compile public information without an original selection or arrangement are not copyrightable.
The court concluded that the compilation of meteorological data lacked originality necessary for copyright protection.
Ohio's approach mirrors the federal interpretation from Feist, emphasizing the necessity of originality in expression rather than mere selection or organization of facts. Both jurisdictions maintain that public domain information remains unprotected under copyright law.
In Ohio, understanding the principles from Feist is critical for the bar exam, particularly under intellectual property, as it tests the limits of copyrightability of facts and compilations.