Feist Publications, Inc v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc
| Citation | 499 U.S. 340,111 S.Ct. 1282,113 L.Ed.2d 358 |
| Decision Date | 27 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1909,89-1909 |
| Parties | FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC., Petitioner v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE COMPANY, INC |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Respondent Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., is a certified public utility providing telephone service to several communities in Kansas. Pursuant to state regulation, Rural publishes a typical telephone directory, consisting of white pages and yellow pages. It obtains data for the directory from subscribers, who must provide their names and addresses to obtain telephone service. Petitioner Feist Publications, Inc., is a publishing company that specializes in area-wide telephone directories covering a much larger geographic range than directories such as Rural's. When Rural refused to license its white pages listings to Feist for a directory covering 11 different telephone service areas, Feist extracted the listings it needed from Rural's directory without Rural's consent. Although Feist altered many of Rural's listings, several were identical to listings in Rural's white pages. The District Court granted summary judgment to Rural in its copyright infringement suit, holding that telephone directories are copyrightable. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: Rural's white pages are not entitled to copyright, and therefore Feist's use of them does not constitute infringement. Pp. 344-364.
(a) Article I, § 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original and, thus, are not copyrightable. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author, not to the facts themselves. This fact/expression dichotomy severely limits the scope of protection in fact-based works. Pp. 344-351.
(b) The Copyright Act of 1976 and its predecessor, the Copyright Act of 1909, leave no doubt that originality is the touchstone of copyright protection in directories and other fact-based works. The 1976 Act explains that copyright extends to "original works of authorship," 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), and that there can be no copyright in facts, § 102(b). A compilation is not copyrightable per se, but is copyrightable only if its facts have been "selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." § 101 (emphasis added). Thus, the statute envisions that some ways of selecting, coordinating, and arranging data are not sufficiently original to trigger copyright protection. Even a compilation that is copyrightable receives only limited protection, for the copyright does not extend to facts contained in the compilation. § 103(b). Lower courts that adopted a "sweat of the brow" or "industrious collection" test which extended a compilation's copyright protection beyond selection and arrangement to the facts themselves—misconstrued the 1909 Act and eschewed the fundamental axiom of copyright law that no one may copyright facts or ideas. Pp. 351-361.
(c) Rural's white pages do not meet the constitutional or statutory requirements for copyright protection. While Rural has a valid copyright in the directory as a whole because it contains some forward text and some original material in the yellow pages, there is nothing original in Rural's white pages. The raw data are uncopyrightable facts, and the way in which Rural selected, coordinated, and arranged those facts is not original in any way. Rural's selection of listings—subscribers' names, towns, and telephone numbers—could not be more obvious and lacks the modicum of creativity necessary to transform mere selection into copyrightable expression. In fact, it is plausible to conclude that Rural did not truly "select" to publish its subscribers' names and telephone numbers, since it was required to do so by state law. Moreover, there is nothing remotely creative about arranging names alphabetically in a white pages directory. It is an age-old practice, firmly rooted in tradition and so commonplace that it has come to be expected as a matter of course. Pp. 361-364.
916 F.2d 718 (CA 10 1990), reversed.
Kyler Knobbe, Cimarron, Kan., for petitioner.
James M. Caplinger, Jr., Topeka, Kan., for respondent.
This case requires us to clarify the extent of copyright protection available to telephone directory white pages.
Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., is a certified public utility that provides telephone service to several communities in northwest Kansas. It is subject to a state regulation that requires all telephone companies operating in Kansas to issue annually an updated telephone directory. Accordingly, as a condition of its monopoly franchise, Rural publishes a typical telephone directory, consisting of white pages and yellow pages. The white pages list in alphabetical order the names of Rural's subscribers, together with their towns and telephone numbers. The yellow pages list Rural's business subscribers alphabetically by category and feature classified advertisements of various sizes. Rural distributes its directory free of charge to its subscribers, but earns revenue by selling yellow pages advertisements.
Feist Publications, Inc., is a publishing company that specializes in area-wide telephone directories. Unlike a typical directory, which covers only a particular calling area, Feist's area-wide directories cover a much larger geographical range, reducing the need to call directory assistance or consult multiple directories. The Feist directory that is the subject of this litigation covers 11 different telephone service areas in 15 counties and contains 46,878 white pages listings—compared to Rural's approximately 7,700 listings. Like Rural's directory, Feist's is distributed free of charge and includes both white pages and yellow pages. Feist and Rural compete vigorously for yellow pages advertising.
As the sole provider of telephone service in its service area, Rural obtains subscriber information quite easily. Persons desiring telephone service must apply to Rural and provide their names and addresses; Rural then assigns them a telephone number. Feist is not a telephone company, let alone one with monopoly status, and therefore lacks independent access to any subscriber information. To obtain white pages listings for its area-wide directory, Feist approached each of the 11 telephone companies operating in northwest Kansas and offered to pay for the right to use its white pages listings.
Of the 11 telephone companies, only Rural refused to license its listings to Feist. Rural's refusal created a problem for Feist, as omitting these listings would have left a gaping hole in its area-wide directory, rendering it less attractive to potential yellow pages advertisers. In a decision subsequent to that which we review here, the District Court determined that this was precisely the reason Rural refused to license its listings. The refusal was motivated by an unlawful purpose "to extend its monopoly in telephone service to a monopoly in yellow pages advertising." Rural Telephone Service Co. v. Feist Publications, Inc., 737 F.Supp. 610, 622 (Kan.1990).
Unable to license Rural's white pages listings, Feist used them without Rural's consent. Feist began by removing several thousand listings that fell outside the geographic range of its area-wide directory, then hired personnel to investigate the 4,935 that remained. These employees- veri fied the data reported by Rural and sought to obtain additional information. As a result, a typical Feist listing includes the individual's street address; most of Rural's listings do not. Notwithstanding these additions, however,1,309 of the 46,878 listings in Feist's 1983 directory were identical to listings in Rural's 1982-1983 white pages. App. 54 (¶ 15-16), 57. Four of these were fictitious listings that Rural had inserted into its directory to detect copying.
Rural sued for copyright infringement in the District Court for the District of Kansas taking the position that Feist, in compiling its own directory, could not use the information contained in Rural's white pages. Rural asserted that Feist's employees were obliged to travel door-to-door or conduct a telephone survey to discover the same information for themselves. Feist responded that such efforts were economically impractical and, in any event, unnecessary because the information copied was beyond the scope of copyright protection. The District Court granted summary judgment to Rural, explaining that "[c]ourts have consistently held that telephone directories are copyrightable" and citing a string of lower court decisions. 663 F.Supp. 214, 218 (1987). In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed "for substantially the reasons given by the district court." App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a, judgt. order reported at 916 F.2d 718 (1990). We granted certiorari, 498 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 40, 112 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990), to determine whether the copyright in Rural's directory protects the names, towns, and telephone numbers copied by Feist.
This case concerns the interaction of two well-established propositions. The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are. Each of these propositions possesses an impeccable pedigree. That there can...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sony Music Entm't v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc.
...and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. Id. at 549 ; Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. , 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). In the instant case, the Court found that Plaintiffs demonstrated ownership of valid copyrights at sum......
-
City of Carlsbad v. Shah, Civil No. 08cv1211 AJB (WMc)
...must demonstrate: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of original elements of the work. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). 60. The City's has established ownership of a valid copyright in the Logo. The City secured the exclusive rights and......
-
McIntosh v. Northern California Universal Enterprises Company, Case No. CV F 07-1080 LJO GSA.
...plaintiff must demonstrate "copying of constituent elements of the work that are original." Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). "The test of infringement is whether the work is recognized by an ordinary observer as having bee......
-
Soc'y of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Inc. v. Denver
...” Situation Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. ASP. Consulting LLC, 560 F.3d 53, 58 (1st Cir.2009) (quoting Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991)). We address each prong's requisites, i.e., ownership and copying, and set off first upon the o......
-
A Practitioner's Guide To Protecting Technology Assets
...for patent in the United States"). 19.Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). 20.See Feist Publ'ns Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 21.Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Intn'l., Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 813 n.5 (1st Cir. 1995). 22.17 U.S.C. § 102(a) (2006). 23.Feist Publications Inc,......
-
The Applicability Of Intellectual Property To 3D Printing
...v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217 (1954). 7 See 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). 8 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). 9 See Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 347 (1991); Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short Phrases, U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE (Oct. 2015), 10 See Herbert Rosentha......
-
Copyright Goes Bananas: District Court Rejects Maurizio Cattelan’s Motion to Dismiss Copyright Claim Against His Taped Banana
...at 1301 (quoting MiTek, 89 F.3d at 1554)). [21] Id. (citing Newman, 959 F.3d at 1306; Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 359 (1991)). [22] Id. (citing Newman, 959 F.3d at 1302; BUC Int’l Corp., 489 F.3d at 1147-48). [23] Id. (citing Calhoun v. Lillenas Publ’g, ......
-
When Copyright First Met The Digital World: A Retrospective And Discussion Of New York Times v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001)
...labor of authors, but '[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,'" Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349 (1991) (citations omitted). The Supreme Court has also consistently acknowledged that "encouragement of individual effort by personal gai......
-
Damages in Dissonance: The 'Shocking' Penalty for Illegal Music File-Sharing
...advantages, including judicial remedies. See infra notes 48–49 and accompanying text. 31 Feist Publ‘ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349–50 (1991). 32 See Sony Corp., 464 U.S. at 428–30. 664 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [39:659 B. Constitutional Authorization The Constitutio......
-
Intellectual property crimes.
...to copyright law, see the MONEY LAUNDERING article in this issue. (279.) See Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 359-60 (1991) (holding originality, not "sweat of the brow"--hard work in compiling facts--is the key to copyright ability); see also CDN Inc. v. Kape......
-
Table Of Cases
...521 (Fed. Cir. 1987), 94. FMC Corp. v. Manitowoc Co., 835 F.2d 1411 (Fed. Cir. 1987), 51, 145. Feist Publ’ns v. Rural Telegraph Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), 69, 71. Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls v. Mega Sys., 350 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003), 26, 58. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Ko......
-
Intellectual property crimes.
...to copyright law, see the MONEY LAUNDERING article in this issue. (231.) See Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349, 353 (1991) (holding originality, not "sweat of the brow"--hard work in compiling facts--is the key to copyright ability); see also CDN Inc. ......