Feist

 Publications  Inc.  v  Rural  Telephone  Service  Company  Inc.  

 
US  Supreme  Court  
March  27,  1991  
 
Facts:  
 
-­‐ Rural  Telephone  Service  Company  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    
-­‐ Rural  publishes  a  typical  telephone  directory,  consisting  of  white  pages  and  
yellow  pages.  
o White  Pages-­‐  list  in  alphabetical  order  the  names  of  Rural's  
subscribers,  together  with  their  towns  and  telephone  numbers    
o Yellow  pages-­‐  list  Rural's  business  subscribers  alphabetically  by  
category,  and  feature  classified  advertisements  of  various  businesses  
-­‐ 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    
-­‐ Feist's  is  distributed  free  of  charge  and  includes  both  white  pages  and  yellow  
pages  
-­‐ Both  companies  compete  for  advertising  on  yellow  pages  
-­‐ 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.    
o 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.    
o 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  advertisers  
-­‐ 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  
o these  investigators  verified  data  reported  by  Rural  and  sought  to  
obtain  additional  information    
-­‐ This  resulted  to  a  few  differences  between  the  information  on  Rural  and  
Feist’s  listings  BUT  1,309  of  the  46,878  listings  in  Feist's  1983  directory  were  
still  identical  to  listings  in  Rural's  1982-­‐  1983  white  pages    
o Rural  even  inserted  4  FAKE  listings  to  detect  any  sort  of  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.  
o Rural  claims  that  Feist’s  employees  should  alsoconduct  surveys  to  get  
the  same  information  they  have.  
-­‐ Feist  responded  that  such  efforts  were  economically  impractical  and,  in  any  
event,  unnecessary,  because  the  information  copied  was  beyond  the  scope  of  
copyright  protection    
 
-­‐ DC  Court  ruled  for  Rural  stating  that  courts  have  consistently  held  that  
telephone  directories  could  be  the  subject  of  copyright.  

Issue/s:  

1. Are  FACTS  copyrightable?    NO  

a. The  sine  qua  non  of  copyright  is  originality.  To  qualify  for  copyright  
protection,  a  work  must  be  original  to  the  author    
i. Original,  as  the  term  is  used  in  copyright,  means  only  that  the  
work  was  independently  created  by  the  author  (as  opposed  to  
copied  from  other  works),  and  that  it  possesses  at  least  some  
minimal  degree  of  creativity    
ii. Originality  does  not  signify  novelty;  a  work  may  be  original  even  
though  it  closely  resembles  other  works,  so  long  as  the  similarity  
is  fortuitous,  not  the  result  of  copying  
b. In  Burrow-­‐Giles,  the  Court  distilled  the  same  requirement  from  the  
Constitution's  use  of  the  word  "authors."    
i. The  Court  defined  "author,"  in  a  constitutional  sense,  to  mean  "he  
to  whom  anything  owes  its  origin;  originator;  maker."    
c. In  The  Trade-­‐Mark  Cases,  the  Court  emphasized  the  creative  component  
of  originality.  
i. It  described  copyright  as  being  limited  to  "original  intellectual  
conceptions  of  the  author,"  ibid.,  and  stressed  the  importance  of  
 requiring  an  author  who  accuses  another  of  infringement  to  prove  
"the  existence  of  those  facts  of  originality,  of  intellectual  
production,  of  thought,  and  conception."    
 
d. Facts  do  not  owe  their  origin  to  an  act  of  authorship    
i. The  distinction  is  one  between  creation  and  discovery:  the  first  
person  to  find  and  report  a  particular  fact  has  not  created  the  fact;  
he  or  she  has  merely  discovered  its  existence  
e. Factual  compilations,  on  the  other  hand,  may  possess  the  requisite  
originality.  
i.  The  compilation  author  typically  chooses  which  facts  to  include,  
in  what  order  to  place  them,  and  how  to  arrange  the  collected  data  
so  that  readers  may  use  them  effectively.    
ii. These  choices  as  to  selection  and  arrangement,  so  long  as  they  are  
made  independently  by  the  compiler  and  entail  a  minimal  degree  
of  creativity,  are  sufficiently  original  that  Congress  may  protect  
such  compilations  through  the  copyright  laws.    
f. This  protection  is  subject  to  an  important  limitation.    
i. The  mere  fact  that  a  work  is  copyrighted  does  not  mean  that  every  
element  of  the  work  may  be  protected.    
g. Where  the  compilation  author  adds  no  written  expression,  but  rather  lets  
the  facts  speak  for  themselves,  the  expressive  element  is  more  elusive.    
h. The  only  conceivable  expression  is  the  manner  in  which  the  compiler  has  
selected  and  arranged  the  facts.    
i. Thus,  if  the  selection  and  arrangement  are  original,  these  elements  
of  the  work  are  eligible  for  copyright  protection.    
i. This  inevitably  means  that  the  copyright  in  a  factual  compilation  is  thin.    
i. A  subsequent  compiler  remains  free  to  use  the  facts  contained  in  
another's  publication  to  aid  in  preparing  a  competing  work,  so  
long  as  the  competing  work  does  not  feature  the  same  
selection  and  arrangement.    
j. Only  the  compiler's  selection  and  arrangement  may  be  protected;  the  
raw  facts  may  be  copied  at  will.    
k. Copyright  treats  facts  and  factual  compilations  in  a  wholly  consistent  
manner.  Facts,  whether  alone  or  as  part  of  a  compilation,  are  not  original,  
and  therefore  may  not  be  copyrighted.  A  factual  compilation  is  eligible  for  
copyright  if  it  features  an  original  selection  or  arrangement  of  facts,  but  
the  copyright  is  limited  to  the  particular  selection  or  arrangement.  
l. The  1976  revisions  to  the  Copyright  Act  leave  no  doubt  that  originality,  
not  "sweat  of  the  brow,"  is  the  touchstone  of  copyright  protection  in  
directories  and  other  fact-­‐based  works.    
i. §  102(a);  that  facts  are  never  original  
ii. §  102(b);  that  the  copyright  in  a  compilation  does  not  extend  to  
the  facts  it  contains  
iii. §  103(b);  and  that  a  compilation  is  copyrightable  only  to  the  extent  
that  it  features  an  original  selection  
2. Did  Feist  commit  copyright  infringement?  NO  
 
a. There  is  no  doubt  that  Feist  took  from  the  white  pages  of  Rural's  
directory  a  substantial  amount  of  factual  information.    
i. At  a  minimum,  Feist  copied  the  names,  towns,  and  telephone  
numbers  of  1,309  of  Rural's  subscribers.  Not  all  copying,  however,  
is  copyright  infringement    
b. To  establish  infringement,  two  elements  must  be  proven:  
(1)  ownership  of  a  valid  copyright  
(2)  copying  of  constituent  elements  of  the  work  that  are  original    
c. Since the first element is already established, the question that remains is
whether Rural selected, coordinated, or arranged these uncopyrightable facts
in an original way
d. The selection, coordination, and arrangement of Rural's white pages do not
satisfy the minimum constitutional standards for copyright protection.
i. As mentioned at the outset, Rural's white pages are entirely typical.
ii. Persons desiring telephone service in Rural's service area fill out an
application, and Rural issues them a telephone number.
iii. In preparing its white pages, Rural simply takes the data provided by
its subscribers and lists it alphabetically
e. This is "selection" of a sort, but it lacks the modicum of creativity necessary
to transform mere selection into copyrightable expression.
f. We note in passing that the selection featured in Rural's white pages may also
fail the originality requirement for another reason.
i. Feist points out that Rural did not truly "select" to publish the names
and telephone numbers of its subscribers; rather, it was required to do
so by the Kansas Corporation Commission as part of its monopoly
franchise
g. There is nothing remotely creative about arranging names alphabetically in a
white pages director

Decision:    

Because Rural's white pages lack the requisite originality, Feist's use of the listings
cannot constitute infringement.

Other  info:  

-­‐ Courts  developed  an  INCORRECT  theory  at  one  point  in  time  known  as  
"sweat  of  the  brow"  or  "industrious  collection,"    
o the  underlying  notion  was  that  copyright  was  a  reward  for  the  hard  
work  that  went  into  compiling  facts  
o To  ensure  that  the  mistakes  of  the  "sweat  of  the  brow"  courts  would  
not  be  repeated,  Congress  took  additional  measures  
o The  1909  Act  had  stated  that  copyright  protected  only  the  
"copyrightable  component  parts"  of  a  work