I. General Information
Date of Judgement: 27.3.1991
Issuing Authority: U.S. Supreme Court
Category: Copyright – Copyright protection
Plaintiff/Appellant: Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., a local telephone company that published its own telephone directory
Defendant/Respondent: Feist Publications, Inc., a publishing company specializing in compiling telephone directories from various sources
Keyworks: Copyright protection; telephone directories; originality; creativity; U.S. Copyright Act; U.S
II. Dispute
The central legal issue of the lawsuit is: Are telephone directories eligible for copyright protection?
Feist Publications wanted to use data from Rural Telephone Service's telephone directory but was denied a license. Feist continued to use Rural's customer list to create its own directory. Rural then sued Feist, alleging copyright infringement of the telephone directory. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
→ Authorizes the U.S. Congress to grant copyrights to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.)
→ Specifically, the provision that copyrighted works must possess "originality."
IV. Judegement
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Rural's claim and determined that Rural's telephone directory was not copyrightable, based on the following arguments:
✅ "Originality Requirement":
To be protected by copyright, a work must exhibit a minimum degree of creativity from the author.
The collection and arrangement of data in a conventional manner (e.g., telephone directories in alphabetical order) does not meet the creativity criterion.
✅ Facts Are Not Copyrightable:
Information such as names, addresses, and phone numbers are objective facts, not intellectual creations, and therefore cannot be the subject of copyright protection.
✅ The "sweat of the brow" doctrine has no legal validity:
Rural argued that they had put in effort ("sweat of the brow") to collect and arrange this list, so they deserved protection.
The court rejected this argument, asserting that mere effort does not create copyright; there must be an element of creativity.
V. Remarks
Facts Are Not Copyrightable: Information such as names,addresses, and phone numbers areobjective facts, not intellectualcreations, and therefore cannot be thesubject of copyright protection.
