Washington
How Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. applies in Washington: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Intellectual Property.
Washington follows the Copyright Act of 1976 along with the principles established in Feist. The state upholds the idea that mere compilation of facts lacks copyright protection unless a modicum of creativity is involved in their selection or arrangement.
In Washington, copyright protections extend to original works of authorship, and for compilations, there must be a minimal level of creativity in the selection and arrangement of facts.
The court upheld the principle that factual compilations, like legal documents, are not subject to copyright unless there is creative expression involved.
The court distinguished between protectable expression and unprotectable facts, reflecting the standards set by Feist.
This case reaffirmed that while databases may contain raw facts, they do not confer copyright unless they exhibit creativity in how those facts are presented.
Washington's application of the principles from Feist mirrors the federal standard, particularly in assessing the originality requirement for compilations. However, Washington courts may place additional emphasis on the creative arrangement of facts depending on state precedents.
Feist's principles are relevant for the Washington bar exam, especially in questions pertaining to copyright and the originality requirement for compilations or databases.