499 U.S. 340 (U.S. Supreme Court 1991)
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone is the Supreme Court's landmark articulation of the originality requirement in U.S.
Are the factual listings and alphabetical arrangement of a telephone directory's white pages copyrightable, and, if not, did Feist's copying of those listings constitute copyright infringement?
The sine qua non of copyright is originality. Facts are not copyrightable; only original expression is. A factual compilation is protected, if at all, only to the extent of the compiler's original selection, coordination, or arrangement (17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(a), 103), and the scope of protection is thin. The "sweat of the brow" doctrine is inconsistent with the Copyright Act and is rejected.
No. The factual content of Rural's white pages and its garden-variety alphabetical arrangement lack the minimal creativity required for copyright protection. Because facts are not protectable and Rural's compilation lacked original selection or arrangement, Feist's copying of names, towns, and telephone numbers did not infringe any copyright. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Rural.
Feist is the foundational modern case on originality and the copyrightability of factual compilations. It cements that facts are free for all to use and that databases and directories receive, at most, thin protection for creative selection or arrangement. The decision invalidates the "sweat of the brow" approach used by some lower courts and shapes how courts treat the protectable scope of compilations across media, including digital databases. For law students, it is indispensable for understanding the line between unprotectable facts and protectable expression, the constitutional basis of originality, and the practical limits of copyright in data-heavy works.