Washington
How Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. applies in Washington: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Copyright.
Washington law follows the principle established in Feist that copyright protection does not extend to facts, but only to the expression of those facts. This aligns with federal copyright law, emphasizing originality as the key factor for protection.
In Washington, to qualify for copyright protection, a work must contain a minimal degree of creativity and originality, meaning mere compilations of facts devoid of creative expression are not protected.
The court ruled that a database of public information without original expression does not qualify for copyright protection, following Feist’s rationale.
This case reinforced the necessity of originality in copyright claims, denying protection for a compilation similar to the facts established in Feist.
The court emphasized that creativity is essential for copyright, echoing the importance of expression as outlined in Feist.
Washington's approach aligns closely with federal copyright standards established in Feist, particularly regarding the non-protectability of facts. Both systems require a degree of originality and creativity for copyright eligibility, demonstrating a unified understanding of the limits of copyright law.
Students should be aware of the Feist decision's influence on Washington copyright law, especially regarding the protection of databases and compilations of facts, as it is likely to be relevant in bar exam questions.