Below are case summaries for the requested cases in the P-FIRAC format

(Purpose, Facts, Issues, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion), along with their *ratio
decidendi* and key legal principles. Each summary is concise yet
comprehensive, addressing the core elements of the case, its reasoning,
and its significance in copyright law. Where applicable, I’ve incorporated
relevant information from the provided search results and critically
evaluated the legal principles to ensure accuracy and clarity---

### 1. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499

U.S. 340 (1991)

**Purpose**: To determine whether a telephone directory’s white pages

listings are copyrightable and whether Feist’s unauthorized use
constituted infringement.

**Facts**: Rural Telephone Service Co., a utility in Kansas, published a

telephone directory with white and yellow pages, as required by state
regulation. Feist Publications, a competing publisher, sought to license
Rural’s white pages listings but was refused. Feist copied 4,000 entries,
including fictitious listings Rural used to detect copying, without consent.
Rural sued for copyright infringement, and the lower courts ruled in its
favor, applying the “sweat of the brow” doctrine.

**Issues**:
1. Are factual compilations, like telephone directories, copyrightable?
2. Does copying factual data from a directory constitute copyright
infringement?

**Rule**: Under the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 101), copyright
protection extends only to original works of authorship displaying a
minimal degree of creativity. Facts and compilations lacking originality are
not copyrightable. The “sweat of the brow” doctrine, which rewards effort
alone, is not a basis for copyright
protection.[](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/499/340/)

**Analysis**: The Supreme Court, per Justice O’Connor, rejected the

“sweat of the brow” doctrine, emphasizing that copyright protects original
expression, not facts or effort. Rural’s white pages, an alphabetical list of
subscriber names and numbers, lacked the requisite originality in
selection or arrangement. Feist’s copying of the listings, while ethically
questionable, did not infringe because the data was not copyrightable.
The Court clarified that only creative elements of a compilation (e.g.,
selection, arrangement) are protectable, not the underlying facts.[]

1
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications%2C_Inc.
%2C_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.)[](https://www.law.cornell.edu/
supremecourt/text/499/340)

**Conclusion**: The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings,

holding that Rural’s white pages were not copyrightable, and Feist’s use
did not constitute infringement.

**Ratio Decidendi**: Copyright protection requires originality, not merely

effort. Factual compilations are only copyrightable if they exhibit creative
selection or arrangement; raw facts are not protectable.

**Key Legal Principles**:

- **Originality Requirement**: Copyright demands a minimal degree of
creativity, not just labor or investment.
- **Fact/Expression Dichotomy**: Facts are not copyrightable; only their
original expression or arrangement is.
- **Rejection of Sweat of the Brow**: Effort alone does not justify
copyright protection, overturning prior U.S. case
law.[](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/499/340/)

---

### 2. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879).

**Purpose**: To determine whether a book explaining a bookkeeping

system, including its blank forms, is copyrightable and whether using
similar forms infringes the copyright.

**Facts**: Selden authored a book describing a novel bookkeeping

system, including blank forms to implement it. Baker published a book
with similar forms that achieved the same result but used different
arrangements. Selden’s estate sued Baker for copyright infringement,
claiming the forms were protected by the book’s copyright.

**Issues**:
1. Can a system or method, such as a bookkeeping system, be
copyrighted?
2. Does copyright in a book extend to the forms used to apply the system?

**Rule**: Copyright protects the original expression in a work, not the

ideas, systems, or methods it describes. Forms necessary to use a system

2
are not copyrightable if they lack original
expression.[](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/499/340)

**Analysis**: The Supreme Court held that Selden’s book was

copyrightable for its explanatory text, but the bookkeeping system and its
forms were not. The forms were functional tools to implement the system,
akin to ideas or methods, which copyright does not protect. Baker’s forms,
while similar in purpose, differed in arrangement and did not copy
Selden’s text. The Court distinguished between copyrightable expression
(the book’s prose) and non-copyrightable ideas (the system and forms),
establishing the idea/expression
dichotomy.[](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/499/340)

**Conclusion**: The Court ruled for Baker, finding no copyright

infringement, as the forms were not protected by Selden’s copyright.

**Ratio Decidendi**: Copyright does not extend to systems, methods, or

functional forms; it protects only the original expression of ideas, not the
ideas themselves.

**Key Legal Principles**:

- **Idea/Expression Dichotomy**: Copyright protects how ideas are
expressed, not the ideas or systems themselves.
- **Functionality Limitation**: Functional elements, like forms essential to
a system, are not copyrightable unless they contain original creative
expression.
- **Scope of Copyright**: Copyright in a work does not grant a monopoly
over its underlying methods or processes.

---

### 3. Football Dataco Ltd. v. Yahoo! UK Ltd., [2012] EUECJ C-

604/10 (ECJ, 2012)

**Purpose**: To determine whether a database of football fixture lists is

protected by copyright or database rights under EU law.

**Facts**: Football Dataco created football fixture lists for UK leagues,

involving significant effort in scheduling matches. Yahoo! and others used
these lists without permission. Football Dataco claimed protection under
the EU Database Directive (96/9/EC), asserting both copyright (for
originality) and sui generis database rights (for substantial investment).

3
The UK courts referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for
clarification.

**Issues**:
1. Are football fixture lists copyrightable under the EU Database Directive?
2. Do they qualify for sui generis database rights based on the effort
invested?

**Rule**: Under the EU Database Directive, a database is copyrightable

only if it is an original intellectual creation through the author’s creative
choices in selection or arrangement. Sui generis database rights apply if
there is substantial investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting data,
but not in creating the data itself.

**Analysis**: The ECJ ruled that football fixture lists did not qualify for
copyright because their creation involved technical and rule-based
constraints, not free creative choices in selection or arrangement. The
significant labor and skill invested were irrelevant to copyright, as
originality requires intellectual creativity. For sui generis rights, the ECJ
held that investment in creating the data (e.g., scheduling matches) did
not count; only investment in collecting or verifying existing data
qualified. Since Football Dataco’s effort was in data creation, no database
rights applied.

**Conclusion**: The ECJ held that the fixture lists were not protected by
copyright or sui generis database rights, allowing Yahoo!’s use.

**Ratio Decidendi**: A database is copyrightable only if its selection or

arrangement reflects the author’s intellectual creation. Sui generis
database rights require investment in obtaining or verifying data, not
creating it.

**Key Legal Principles**:

- **Originality in Databases**: Copyright in databases requires creative
intellectual choices, not just technical effort or skill.
- **Sui Generis Database Rights**: Protection applies to investment in
data collection or verification, not data creation.
- **EU Copyright Standard**: The EU emphasizes intellectual creativity
over labor-based protection, aligning with Feist’s rejection of “sweat of the
brow.”

---

4
### 4. Eastern Book Co. & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr., AIR 2008 SC
809 (India)

**Purpose**: To determine whether copy-edited versions of judicial

decisions are copyrightable and whether reproducing them infringes
copyright.

**Facts**: Eastern Book Co. published law reports containing copy-edited

Supreme Court judgments, adding headnotes, formatting, and
annotations. Modak and others produced CD-ROMs with judgments
sourced from Eastern’s publications, omitting the headnotes. Eastern
claimed copyright infringement, arguing their copy-editing involved
originality. The trial court and Delhi High Court dismissed the claim,
finding insufficient originality.

**Issues**:
1. Are copy-edited judicial decisions original works eligible for copyright?
2. Does reproducing such judgments without permission constitute
infringement?

**Rule**: Under Indian copyright law, a work is copyrightable if it involves

a minimal degree of creativity, not merely labor. Compilations may be
protected if their selection or arrangement is
original.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications%2C_Inc.
%2C_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.)

**Analysis**: The Supreme Court of India, citing Feist and CCH Canadian,
adopted a middle ground between the “sweat of the brow” and high
creativity standards. It held that Eastern’s copy-editing (e.g., correcting
errors, adding cross-references, and formatting) involved sufficient skill,
judgment, and creativity to qualify as original. However, the original
judgments themselves, being public domain, were not copyrightable.
Modak’s reproduction of the copy-edited text infringed Eastern’s copyright
in the specific enhancements, but not the underlying judgments.[]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications%2C_Inc.
%2C_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.)

**Conclusion**: The Supreme Court allowed Eastern’s claim in part,

finding copyright in the copy-edited additions and ordering an injunction
against Modak’s unauthorized use.

**Ratio Decidendi**: Copy-edited versions of public domain works are

copyrightable if they involve a minimal degree of creativity through skill

5
and judgment. Infringement occurs only when the original contributions
are copied.

**Key Legal Principles**:

- **Minimal Creativity Standard**: Copyright requires a modest level of
creativity, balancing Feist’s originality and “sweat of the brow” doctrines.
- **Derivative Works**: Enhancements to public domain materials can be
copyrighted if they exhibit originality.
- **Scope of Protection**: Copyright extends only to the original
contributions, not the underlying public domain
content.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications%2C_Inc.
%2C_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.)

---

### 5. CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004]

1 SCR 339 (Canada)

**Purpose**: To determine whether legal publishers’ headnotes,

summaries, and edited judgments are copyrightable and whether the Law
Society’s copying constituted infringement or fair dealing.

**Facts**: CCH Canadian Ltd. published law reports with headnotes, case
summaries, and edited judicial decisions. The Law Society of Upper
Canada maintained a library that provided photocopies of these materials
to members. CCH sued for copyright infringement, claiming originality in
its publications. The Law Society argued its copying was fair dealing for
research purposes.

**Issues**:
1. Are headnotes, summaries, and edited judgments original works under
Canadian copyright law?
2. Does the Law Society’s copying qualify as fair dealing?

**Rule**: Under the Canadian Copyright Act, a work is original if it involves

skill, judgment, and labor, but not merely “sweat of the brow.” Fair
dealing for research or private study is an exception to infringement if the
copying is reasonable and for a permitted purpose.

**Analysis**: The Supreme Court of Canada, per Chief Justice McLachlin,

defined originality as requiring skill and judgment, rejecting both the
U.S.’s high creativity standard (Feist) and the UK’s labor-based approach.
CCH’s headnotes and summaries involved sufficient editorial judgment to

6
be original, but the edited judgments were less clear, as they closely
followed public domain texts. On fair dealing, the Court found the Law
Society’s copying was for research, a broad and user-focused purpose,
and was reasonable given limited scope and access controls. The Law
Society’s actions did not infringe due to the fair dealing exemption.[]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications%2C_Inc.
%2C_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.)

**Conclusion**: The Court held that CCH’s headnotes and summaries were
copyrightable, but the Law Society’s copying was permissible under fair
dealing.

**Ratio Decidendi**: Originality in Canada requires skill and judgment, not

just labor or high creativity. Fair dealing for research is a robust user right
if the copying is reasonable and for an allowable purpose.

**Key Legal Principles**:

- **Canadian Originality Standard**: Originality balances skill, judgment,
and effort, distinct from U.S. and UK approaches.
- **Fair Dealing**: Research purposes are broadly interpreted, and fair
dealing is assessed by factors like purpose, amount copied, and effect on
the market.
- **User Rights**: Copyright law balances creators’ rights with public
access, emphasizing user protections.

---

### 6. Snow v. Eaton Centre Ltd., [1982] 70 CPR (2d) 105

(Ontario High Court, Canada)

**Purpose**: To determine whether altering an artist’s work violates moral

rights under Canadian copyright law.

**Facts**: Michael Snow created a sculpture of flying geese for Eaton

Centre’s atrium. The Centre placed red ribbons on the geese as a
Christmas decoration, without Snow’s consent. Snow sued, claiming the
alteration violated his moral rights by distorting his work and harming his
reputation. The Centre argued the ribbons were temporary and festive,
not prejudicial.

**Issues**:
1. Does altering an artwork without the artist’s consent violate moral
rights?

7
2. Was the alteration prejudicial to Snow’s honor or reputation?

**Rule**: Under the Canadian Copyright Act, moral rights protect an

artist’s right to the integrity of their work. Alteration or distortion that
prejudices the artist’s honor or reputation infringes these rights,
regardless of economic harm.

**Analysis**: The court recognized Snow’s moral rights, emphasizing that

the sculpture’s artistic integrity was tied to his reputation. The ribbons,
though festive, altered the work’s aesthetic and message, potentially
ridiculing it in the public’s eyes. The court found the alteration prejudicial,
as it undermined Snow’s artistic intent without his consent. The Centre’s
intent was irrelevant; the focus was on the effect on Snow’s reputation.

**Conclusion**: The court granted an injunction, ordering the ribbons

removed, as the alteration violated Snow’s moral rights.

**Ratio Decidendi**: Altering an artwork without the artist’s consent

violates moral rights if it distorts the work in a way that prejudices the
artist’s honor or reputation.

**Key Legal Principles**:

- **Moral Rights**: Artists retain rights to the integrity of their work,
separate from economic rights, to protect their creative vision.
- **Prejudice to Reputation**: Infringement depends on the alteration’s
impact on the artist’s honor, assessed subjectively and objectively.
- **Scope of Protection**: Moral rights apply even to temporary changes if
they harm the work’s integrity.

---

### 7. Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening,

[2009] EUECJ C-5/08 (ECJ, 2009)

**Purpose**: To determine whether extracting short text snippets from

news articles for commercial summaries infringes copyright under EU law.

**Facts**: Infopaq operated a media monitoring service, scanning

newspapers and extracting 11-word snippets around search terms to
create summaries. Danske Dagblades, representing Danish publishers,
claimed this infringed copyright in the articles. The case was referred to
the ECJ to clarify whether snippets were protected and whether Infopaq’s
process involved reproduction.

8
**Issues**:
1. Are 11-word text excerpts from news articles copyrightable?
2. Does Infopaq’s automated extraction and temporary storage infringe
copyright?

**Rule**: Under the EU Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC), a work is

copyrightable if it is an original intellectual creation. Reproduction
includes any act that copies a protected work, even temporarily, unless
covered by exceptions like transient copying.

**Analysis**: The ECJ held that news articles are copyrightable if they
reflect the author’s intellectual creation. Short excerpts, like 11-word
snippets, could be protected if they contain original elements of the
article’s expression, as they might convey its creative essence. Infopaq’s
extraction involved reproducing these snippets, which was not transient or
incidental, as it was a deliberate commercial act. No copyright exception
applied, as Infopaq’s use was not for a permitted purpose like private
study. The ECJ left it to national courts to assess originality but suggested
snippets could infringe if sufficiently original.

**Conclusion**: The ECJ ruled that extracting 11-word snippets could

infringe copyright if the snippets reproduced original elements of the
articles, and Infopaq’s process did not qualify for exemptions.

**Ratio Decidendi**: Short text excerpts are copyrightable if they

reproduce the original intellectual creation of the author. Automated
extraction for commercial purposes infringes unless covered by a
copyright exception.

**Key Legal Principles**:

- **Originality in Excerpts**: Even small portions of a work are protected if
they reflect the author’s creative expression.
- **Reproduction**: Any copying, including temporary or automated
processes, can infringe unless exempted.
- **EU Copyright Scope**: The EU emphasizes protecting intellectual
creation, with narrow exceptions for commercial uses.

---

### Notes:
- **Accuracy and Sources**: The summaries draw on authoritative sources
(e.g., court decisions, legal databases) and provided search results where

9
relevant. I critically evaluated the “sweat of the brow” doctrine’s rejection
in Feist and its influence on cases like Eastern Book and CCH Canadian,
ensuring alignment with legal
standards.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications%2C_Inc.
%2C_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.)[](https://supreme.justia.com/
cases/federal/us/499/340/)[](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/
text/499/340)
- **P-FIRAC Structure**: Each summary follows the P-FIRAC format for
clarity, focusing on the case’s core legal reasoning.
- **Ratio Decidendi and Principles**: These are distilled to reflect the
binding legal rule and broader implications, avoiding overgeneralization.
- **Infopaq Date**: The query lists Infopaq as 2000, but the correct case is
2009 (C-5/08). I assumed this was a typo and used the 2009 case.
- **Critical Perspective**: I noted the tension between U.S. (Feist),
Canadian (CCH), and EU (Infopaq, Football Dataco) originality standards,
highlighting how jurisdictions balance creator rights and public access
differently.

……………….》》》》》》》》

10