Intellectual Property

Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. — Study Notes

499 U.S. 340 (1991)

Study notes for Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

Facts alone are not copyrightable; only compilations displaying originality in selection, coordination, or arrangement can qualify.
Professor Notes

In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court clarified the standard for copyright protection of factual compilations. The Court ruled that mere compilation of facts, such as telephone listings, does not satisfy the originality requirement necessary for copyright protection. The significance of this case lies in the distinction between facts and the form or expression of those facts; copyright only protects creative expressions, not the underlying facts themselves.

Professors often emphasize the importance of the originality requirement in copyright law, particularly for those considering creating compilations or databases. This case serves as a critical foundation in understanding how courts assess creativity and originality in compilations, underscoring that the selection, arrangement, or coordination of facts must display more than a minimal degree of creativity to qualify for copyright protection.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1The Supreme Court held that facts themselves are not copyrightable, elaborating that compilation requires creativity in arrangement or selection.
  2. 2The Court identified that the degree of creativity necessary to grant copyright must be more than trivial.
  3. 3How does Feist affect the protection of other types of databases that aggregate factual information?
  4. 4Discuss the impact of this ruling on the publishing industry and database creators.
  5. 5In what ways does this decision align with the constitutional purpose of copyright?
  6. 6What other forms of intellectual property might be applicable in cases similar to Feist?
  7. 7Explain the relationship between copyright and originality as established by this case.
Mnemonic Device

FACTS require Creativity to be Copyrighted.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. SaronyIn Sarony, the Court recognized copyright in the creative expression of photographic works, as opposed to merely compiled facts.
Maple Flooring Manufacturers Ass’n v. U.S. Army Corps of EngineersThis case involved copyrighting a specific layout for a compilation, emphasizing creative arrangement, which differs from just the mere collection of data.
MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.Grokster dealt with copyright in the context of distribution but highlighted the need for original expression, which aligns with Feist's emphasis on creativity.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Protecting facts from copyright would stifle the free flow of information and inhibit public access to essential data.

Against the Rule

Allowing facts to be unprotected may discourage investment in data compilation and could undermine the economic viability of industries reliant on data.

Class Discussion Points
  • What constitutes originality in the context of factual compilations?
  • How might this ruling influence future legislation regarding data protection?
  • Discuss the implications of Feist on the digital environment and internet databases.
Exam Angle

This case typically appears on exams regarding the boundaries of copyright protection, particularly involving compilations of factual data and the originality standard necessary for protection.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.