Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feist, Not a New-Line of Jurisprudence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Footprints of Feist in European Database Directive

  • 260 Accesses

Abstract

It was believed that Feist decision replaced ‘sweat of the brow’ argument for providing copyright protection to factual compilations. Removal of sweat of the brow theory from the ambit of copyright protection was held detrimental for future production of databases. This chapter shows that Feist decision was not unique and it re-iterated existing copyright law in US. Feist tried to resolve the conflict relating to the threshold of originality in limited circuits. The threshold standard stated for copyright protection was not a surprise for the US Copyright Office. Further, the guidelines of Feist decision have been consistently followed in decisions dealing with the question of copyrightability of factual compilations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Commission, ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the legal protection of databases’ COM (92) 24 final (COM (92) 24 final), para [2.3.3].

  2. 2.

    ibid, para [3.1.9].

  3. 3.

    Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service, 499 US 340 (1991), 348; Nimmer on Copyright: A Treatise on the Law of Literacy, Musical and Artistic Property and the Protection of Ideas, Vol 1, para 2.01 [A]-[B] (issue 75-5/2008, 80-12/2009, 63-4/04, 82-8/2010-Pub. 465); Robert C Denicola, ‘Copyright in Collections of Facts: A theory for the protection of nonfiction literary works’ (1981) 81(3) Colum L Rev 516, 525.

  4. 4.

    ibid.

  5. 5.

    Rural Telephone Service Co. v. Feist Publications, 737 F. Supp. 610 (D. Kan. 1990).

  6. 6.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 344.

  7. 7.

    ibid, 345-354; “Originality is a statutory, as well as a constitutional requirement’’ Nimmer on Copyright, Vol. 1, para 1.06 [A] (issue 85-8/2011 Pub 465).

  8. 8.

    Nimmer on Copyright, Vol 1, para 1.02 (issue 74-11/2007 Pub. 465).

  9. 9.

    “Authors” and “Writings” in Article I, § 8, cl. 8 of US Constitution; “Requirement of originality is more generally regarded as due to this use of the term “authors” in a subsequent phrase of the Copyright Clause.”, Nimmer on Copyright, Vol 1, para 1.03 [B] (issue 85-8/2011); On the point that originality is a Constitutional requirement, Patterson & Joyce, ‘Monopolizing the Law: The Scope of Copyright Protection for Law Reports and Statutory Compilations’ (1989) 36(4) UCLA L. Rev 719, 759.

  10. 10.

    The Trade Mark Cases 100 US 82 (1879) and Burrow-Giles Lithograph Co v Sarony 111 US 53 (1884); Feist Publications (n 3) 345-354; This proposition finds support in the work of Brian Dahl and he says that the use of the ‘sweat of the brow’ theory works against the requirement of originality under the US Constitution, Brian A Dahl, ‘Originality and creativity in reporter pagination: a contradiction in Terms’? (1989) 74(4) Iowa L Rev 713, 720–721.

  11. 11.

    The Trade Mark Cases (n 10), 94.

  12. 12.

    ibid.

  13. 13.

    ibid.

  14. 14.

    Nimmer on Copyright, Vol 1, para 1.08 [C] (issue 60-4/03 Pub 465).

  15. 15.

    Elizabeth M Saunders, ‘Copyright protection for compilations of Fact: Does the originality standard allow protection on the basis of industrious collections’ (1987) 62(4) Notre Dame L Rev 763, 764.

  16. 16.

    George Ticknor Curtis, A Treatise on the Law of Copyright: Books, Dramatic and musical composition, letters and other manuscripts, engravings and sculptures (A Maxwell and Son 1847) 171 and Eaton S Drone, A Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions in Great Britain and the United States: Embracing Copyright in Works of Literature and Art, and Playwright in Dramatic and Musical Compositions (Little, Brown 1879) 198-99 and based on case decisions in Emerson v. Davies, 8 F. Cas. 615, 619 (C.C.D. Mass. 1845) (No. 4436) and Gray v. Russell, 10 F. Cas. 1035, 1037-38 (C.C.D. Mass. 1839) (No. 5728) in Jennifer R Dowd, ‘A selection view on history: Feist Publications, Inc v Rural Telephone Service Co.’ (1992-1993) 34 BCL Rev 137, 154–157.

  17. 17.

    Burrow-Giles Lithograph (n 10).

  18. 18.

    U.S. Copyright Act 1870, 16 Stat. 198.

  19. 19.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 347.

  20. 20.

    ibid; The Supreme Court defined author in Constitutional sense and established that authorship is the indispensable element of originality, Nimmer on Copyright, Vol 1, para 1.06 [A] (issue 85-8/2011).

  21. 21.

    Copyright Act of 1909, s4.

  22. 22.

    ibid, s3.

  23. 23.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 351.

  24. 24.

    ibid.

  25. 25.

    ibid.

  26. 26.

    ibid, 354–358.

  27. 27.

    ‘House Report No. 94-1476 (US Copyright Act, 1976)’ (US House of Representatives) available at <http://www.copyright.gov/history/law/clrev_94-1476.pdf> (accessed 27 November 2016) 51.

  28. 28.

    ibid.

  29. 29.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 352; In Miller v Universal City Studios, Inc 650 F.2d 1365 (5th Cir 1981) 1370, the problem associated with the application of section 5 of the 1909 US Copyright Act was stated.

  30. 30.

    Copyright Act, 1976, § 101; In the sense of copyright, Feist Publications (n 3) 356; Mills Music Inc v. Synder 469 U.S. 153 (1985); William Patry, ‘Copyright in Compilation of Facts (or Why the “White Pages” Are Not Copyrightable)’ (1990) 12(4) Com. & Law 37, 64.

  31. 31.

    Feist Publications (n 3).

  32. 32.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 347; Nimmer on Copyright, Vol 1, para 2.11 [A] (issue 68-12/05 Pub. 465).

  33. 33.

    ibid; this impediment would be against the policy of freeing up of information, as they are building blocks for future production and the “same is true of all facts—scientific, historical, biographical, and news of the day” Feist Publications (n 3) 348. Similarly in Miller (n 29) 1369 the court said that these information “…may not be copyrighted and are part of the public domain available to every person.” There is a totally different view point concerning originality and about the decision in Feist. According to that view, originality is a redundant criterion to provide property rights and ultimately such threshold distorts market and affects production, Mark Sherwood-Edwards, ‘The Redundancy of Originality’ (1995) 6(3) Ent L R 94; This proposition is questionable, since even after the decision in Feist the US market grew considerably.

  34. 34.

    Justin Hughes, ‘Created Facts and the flawed ontology of Copyright Law’ (2007-2008) 3(1) Notre Dame L Rev 43, 45.

  35. 35.

    Equifax, available at <http://www.equifax.com/home/en_us> (accessed 10 February 2010).

  36. 36.

    ibid.

  37. 37.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 347.

  38. 38.

    This is a standard procedure in the United Kingdom.

  39. 39.

    This is similar to the situation of a telephone directory where an individual has the option to opt out from his name appearing in the Directory, Infra section 6.4.1.

  40. 40.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 347.

  41. 41.

    Supra (n 33).

  42. 42.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 347; Nimmer on Copyright, Vol 1, para 2.03 [E] (issue 79-8/2009 Pub. 465); Denicola (n 3) 523.

  43. 43.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 347; Nimmer on Copyright, Vol 1, para 2.03 [E] (issue 79-8/2009 Pub. 465) 563.

  44. 44.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 348.

  45. 45.

    Previously in Baker v Seldon 101 US 99 (1879), the US Supreme Court implicitly rejected the ‘sweat of the brow’ doctrine by denying copyright protection to a book-keeping system. While giving the judgment, the court held that the industrious effort on the part of the claimant is praiseworthy, but under the Law, there is no contemplation of rewarding them for such labour.

  46. 46.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 355.

  47. 47.

    Patry (n 30) 66.

  48. 48.

    ibid.

  49. 49.

    Feist decision is an example in this regard.

  50. 50.

    United Telephone Company of Missouri v. Johnson publishing 855 F 2d 604 (8th Cir 1988); “The phrase “original works or authorship,” which is purposely left undefined [in 1976 Act], is intended to incorporate without change the standard of originality established by the courts under the present [1909] copyright statute.”, ‘House Report No. 94-1476 (US Copyright Act, 1976)’ (US House of Representatives) available at <http://www.copyright.gov/history/law/clrev_94-1476.pdf> (accessed 27 November 2016); Saunders (n 303) 766; Ginsburg (n 141) 1895.

  51. 51.

    Michael J Haungs, ‘Copyright of factual compilations: Public policy and the First Amendment’ (1990) 23(3) Colum J L & Soc Probs 347, 357.

  52. 52.

    Jack B Hicks, ‘Copyright and computer databases: Is traditional compilation Law adequate?’ (1987) 65(5) Tex L Rev 993, 1025-1027.

  53. 53.

    Russ Versteeg, ‘Sparks in the Tinderbox: Feist, “Creativity”, and the legislative history of the 1976 Copyright Act’ (1994-1995) 56(3) U Pitt L Rev 549, 557–572. The author highlighted the concern about the high level of creativity requirement in the future copyright decisions. The Feist court has already said that the level of creativity should be minimal.

  54. 54.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 347.

  55. 55.

    Harper & Row Publishers Inc and the Reader’s Digest Association v Nation Enterprises and the Nation Associates, Inc, 471 US 539 (1985) 547.

  56. 56.

    Nimmer on Copyright, Vol 1, para 2.11 [D] (issue 80-12/2009); Denicola (n 3) 523.

  57. 57.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 347.

  58. 58.

    ‘Sweat of the brow’ in the background of US cases, Infra section 3.2 and 3.3.

  59. 59.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 353; criticizing Jeweler’s Circular Publishing Co. V. Keystone Publishing Co., 281 F 83 (CA2 1922); Using “sweat of the brow” theory “…would impede progress by requiring compilers to continually collect raw data anew”, Denise R Polivy ‘Feist applied: Imagination protects, but perspiration persists—the bases of copyright protection for factual compilation’ (1997-98) 8(3) Fordham Intell Prop Media & Ent L J 773, 800.

  60. 60.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 353; Miller (n 29) 1372.

  61. 61.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 353.

  62. 62.

    It is beyond the scope of this book to assess whether the Supreme Court in Feist has rightly referred to the US Constitution. In addition, it will not be analyzed whether the Supreme Court should have limited the originality criterion as a statutory requirement.

  63. 63.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 345.

  64. 64.

    ibid.

  65. 65.

    ibid 349.

  66. 66.

    ibid (n 3) 347.

  67. 67.

    Robin Elizabeth Herr, Is the Sui Generis Right a Failed Experiment? A legal and Theoretical Exploration of How to Regulate Unoriginal Database Contents and Possible Suggestions for Reform (DJØF Publishing Copenhagen, Denmark 2008) 24, 165; Similarly Jessica Litman, ‘After Feist’ (1992) 17(2) U Dayton L Rev 607.

  68. 68.

    “The Feist decision’s dicta regarding Constitutional requirements neither dictates sweeping changes in the current state of copyright law, nor pre-emptively precludes Congressional alteration of the original requirement”, Michael B. Gerdes, ‘Getting Beyond Constitutionally Mandated Originality as a Prerequisite for Federal Copyright Protection’ (1992) 24(4) Ariz St L J 1461, 1477.

  69. 69.

    ibid; Herr (n 67) 165; Whereas there have been comments to suggest that the US Congress is still competent to use the Copyright clause to decide on the copyrightability of a particular work, Jane C Ginsburg, ‘No “Sweat”? Copyright and the Protection of Works of Information after Feist v Rural’ (1992) 92(2) Colum L Rev 338, 375.

  70. 70.

    It has been suggested that database legislation may be enacted by following the Commerce clause instead of the copyright clause.

  71. 71.

    ibid.

  72. 72.

    Arguing on the possibility of lobbying pressure on the US Congress, Polivy (n 59) 791; Similar contention has been raised by Marci A Hamilton, Marci A Hamilton, Database Protection and the Circuitous Route Around the United States Constitution in Charles EF Rickett & Graeme W Austin International Intellectual Property and Common Law World (Hart Publishing, 2000) 34.

  73. 73.

    “The Court thus seems to have envisioned the challenges and technological advances that were to come. The origins of the jurisprudence inherent in Feist, therefore, necessarily lie in twentieth century achievements, rather than those of the nineteenth century”. Miriam Bitton, ‘Protection for Informational Works after Feist Publications, Inc v. Rural Telephone Service Co (2011) 21(3) Fordham Intell Prop Media & Ent L J 611, 625.

  74. 74.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 363-364.

  75. 75.

    ibid 345; Leo J Raskind, ‘Assessing the Impact of Feist’ (1992) 17(2) U Dayton L Rev 331, 334.

  76. 76.

    ibid.

  77. 77.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 345.

  78. 78.

    ibid 359.

  79. 79.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 362.

  80. 80.

    ibid.

  81. 81.

    The book will attempt to observe the level of creativity in future American cases concerning databases, infra section 3.3.

  82. 82.

    Ginsburg (n 69) 347; This has been said in the context of the case decision in Kregos v Associated Press 937 F2d 700 (2d Cir 1991). The Court calculated 167,980 possible combinations to choose from when a person compiles a nine category pitching form from a pool of twenty statistical categories. The minimal creativity in this context satisfies the Feist criterion.

  83. 83.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 345.

  84. 84.

    ibid.

  85. 85.

    ibid.

  86. 86.

    ibid (n 3) 345.

  87. 87.

    ibid 344.

  88. 88.

    ibid 349.

  89. 89.

    In this context, apparently Justice O’Connor has accepted ‘free-riding’ as a policy enshrined in the US Constitution, Ginsburg (n 69) 349. Justice O’Connor said in the context of the dissenting comment of Brennan, J in Harper & Row Publishers (n 55) 589 that it may seem unfair when one can use much of compiler’s labour without compensation. However, this is “essence of copyright” and “a Constitutional requirement”, Feist Publications (n 3) 349; There is the argument that Feist has grossly neglected the incentive role of copyright, Ginsburg (n 69) 350; However, there is an issue about the role of copyright in incentivizing production. It relates to the proposition that the creation of work does not possibly depend on the existence of copyright protection, Supra section 2.2.

  90. 90.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 349.

  91. 91.

    ibid 358.

  92. 92.

    ibid 349.

  93. 93.

    The US Supreme Court identified the effort expended by Rural, Feist Publications (n 3) 364.

  94. 94.

    COM (92) 24 final, para [2.3.3].

  95. 95.

    John Tessensohn, ‘The Devil’s in the Details: The Quest for Legal Protection of Computer Databases and the Collections of Information Act’ (1997-98) 38(3) IDEA Intell Prop L Rev 439, 443; Feist case was a review of originality requirement in US, Hasan A Deveci, ‘Databases: Is sui generis a stronger bet than copyright?’ (2004) 12(2) IJLIT 178, 187-188.

  96. 96.

    Even though there was confusion and disparity, in Feist the Supreme Court pointed out that the 1976 US Copyright Act clearly suggests originality must be based on selection or arrangement, Herr (n 67) 158-159.

  97. 97.

    Feist Publications (n 3).

  98. 98.

    As observed before, prior to Feist decision, cases decided on the basis of sweat of the brow, had no tenuous link between creativity and originality. A compilation, under the “sweat” theory would be original, if it was not copied and resulted from effort; Herr (n 67) 162; Polivy, (n 59) 782.

  99. 99.

    Herr (n 67) 165.

  100. 100.

    Copyright Office and Copyright Royalty Tribunal Report Status to House Panel, 41 Pat Trademark & Copyright J (BNA) No. 524 (April 18, 1991) in Herr (n 67) 166.

  101. 101.

    Daniel J Gervais, ‘Feist goes global: A comparative analysis of the notion of originality in copyright law’ (2002) 49(4) Journal of Copyright Society of the US 949, 950.

  102. 102.

    Herr (n 67) 166.

  103. 103.

    David O Carson, ‘Copyright protection for factual compilations after Feist: A practioner’s view’ (1992) 17(3) U Dayton L Rev 969, 971.

  104. 104.

    281 F 83 (CA2 1922); The theory of ‘sweat of the brow’ in US traces back to old English precedent and the theories modern expression lies in the Jeweler case, Haungs (n 51) 351.

  105. 105.

    Jeweler’s Circular Publishing (n 104) 88.

  106. 106.

    Orgel v. Clark Boardman Co., 301 F 2d 119 (1962); Robert A Gorman has said ‘sweat of the brow’ as equivalent to “original fact gathering”- meaning, the issue of independent requirement of labour, Robert A Gorman, ‘Copyright protection for the collection and representation of facts’ (1963) 76(8) Harv L Rev 1569, 1584.

  107. 107.

    Charles E. Schroeder and Marion S. Schroeder v. William Morrow and Company and George Banta & Co 566 F 2d 3 (7th Cir 1977) para [6].

  108. 108.

    91 F 2d 484 (1937).

  109. 109.

    ibid.

  110. 110.

    Charles E. Schroeder (n 107); Illinois Bell v. Haines and Company 905 F 2d 1081 (7th Cir 1990) 1086.

  111. 111.

    The Supreme Court in this case did say that compilations of pure facts may be copyrightable but did not say anything further about how such test should be developed, Harper and Row Publishers (n 55) 547.

  112. 112.

    ibid.

  113. 113.

    ibid.

  114. 114.

    ibid.

  115. 115.

    ibid; This has been previously said by Robert A Gorman, He said, “our law, as reflected in the terms of our copyright statutes and the language of our courts, emphasizes the greater need to disseminate the contents of fact works in contrast to the contents of works of artistic or literary fancy”, Robert A Gorman, ‘Fact or Fancy? The Implications for Copyright-The Twelfth Annual Donald C Brace Memorial Lecture’ (1982) 29(6) Journal of the Copyright Society 560, 561.

  116. 116.

    Harper House, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc 889 F 2d 197 (9th Cir 1989); Dow Jones & Company Inc. v. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago 539 F Supp 190 (1982); Dennis W. Eckes and James Beckett v. Card Prices Update and Suffolk Collectables 736 F 2d 859 (2d Cir 1984) 863; Southern Bell Telephone v. Associated Telephone 756 F 2d 801 (11th Cir. 1985) 809; Fred L. Worth v. Selchow &. Righter Company 827 F2d 569 (9th Cir 1987).

  117. 117.

    Dennis W Eckes (n 116) 863.

  118. 118.

    ibid.

  119. 119.

    Southern Bell Telephone (n 116) 809.

  120. 120.

    ibid.

  121. 121.

    ibid.

  122. 122.

    Fred L. Worth (n 116).

  123. 123.

    Similarly in the case of Harper House (n 116) the Court of Appeal said that organizer/compilation with mostly un-copyrightable facts, should be provided with extremely limited protection; Thomas P Arden, The conflicting treatments of compilations of facts under the United States and United Kingdom copyright laws (1992) 3(2) Ent L Rev 43.

  124. 124.

    Harper and Row Publishers (n 55) 547.

  125. 125.

    Fred L. Worth (n 116).

  126. 126.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 362.

  127. 127.

    Southern Bell Telephone (n 116) 809.

  128. 128.

    It has walking fingers logo and the reference of the term yellow pages, Southern Bell Telephone (n 116).

  129. 129.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 345.

  130. 130.

    Supra section 3.2.

  131. 131.

    US Copyright Act, 1909, s5.

  132. 132.

    For example Jeweler’s Circular Publishing (n 104) and Leon (n 108).

  133. 133.

    ibid.

  134. 134.

    Jeweler’s Circular Publishing (n 104) 88; Leon (n 108).

  135. 135.

    Further evidence shows that after the passage of the 1976 US Copyright Act, telephone companies chose to claim copyright protection in directories in a more hospitable jurisdiction. This is said in the context that 1976 Act brought about the correct form of originality instead of the application of ‘sweat of the brow’ theory, Shira Perlmutter, ‘The Scope of Copyright in Telephone Directories: Keeping Listing Information in the Public Domain’ (1991) 38(1) Journal of the Copyright Society 1, 1–4.

  136. 136.

    Copyright Act, 1976, §102.

  137. 137.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 347.

  138. 138.

    Hutchison Telephone Directory v. Fronteer Directory Company 770 F 2d 128 (8th Cir 1985) 131; Rand McNally & Company v. Fleet Management Systems Inc. 591 F Supp 726 (ND Ill 1983) 737 on the basis of Charles E. Schroeder (n 107).

  139. 139.

    ibid.

  140. 140.

    The circuit courts have been 2nd, 7th, 8th and 9th. In the rush to offer incentives in the directory cases, the courts have foregone the concepts of ideas, facts and information, Shira Perlmutter, (n 135) 1–3.

  141. 141.

    Polivy (n 59) 780–781.

  142. 142.

    In case of exhaustive selections, copyright “…somewhat uncomfortably used to protect the underlying effort, time and expense (‘sweat of the brow’) rather than fanciful expression that it typically protects”, Gorman (n 115) 571.

  143. 143.

    Dennis W Eckes (n 116) 863 & Fred L. Worth (n 116).

  144. 144.

    ibid.

  145. 145.

    Paul Goldstein, ‘Copyright’ (1990-91) 38(3) Journal of the Copyright Society 109, 118–119.

  146. 146.

    ibid 118–119.

  147. 147.

    Marci A Hamilton, “Justice O’Connor’s opinion in Feist Publications Inc v. Rural Telephone Service Co: An Uncommon Though Characteristic Approach” (1990-91) 38(2) Journal of the Copyright Society 83, 86–89.

  148. 148.

    Dowd (n 16) 154–157.

  149. 149.

    ibid.

  150. 150.

    ibid.

  151. 151.

    Feist Publications (n 3).

  152. 152.

    Jeweler’s Circular Publishing (n 104) 88–89.

  153. 153.

    Patry (n 30) 37 and 40.

  154. 154.

    Feist Publications (n 3).

  155. 155.

    This was the argument posed in the first draft proposal, COM (92) 24 final, para [2.3.3].

  156. 156.

    Supra section 3.2.

  157. 157.

    Feist Publications (n 3).

  158. 158.

    Dennis W Eckes (n 116) 863 & Fred L. Worth (n 116).

  159. 159.

    “…Registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright”, ‘US Copyright Office’, available at <http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf> (accessed 27 November 2016).

  160. 160.

    ‘US Copyright Office’ available at <http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#automatic> (accessed 10 Jan 2011).

  161. 161.

    ‘US Copyright Office: Report on Legal Protection for Databases: August 1997’ available at <http://www.copyright.gov/reports/db4.pdf> (accessed 27 November 2016). (‘US Copyright Office: Report on Legal Protection for Databases: August 1997’).

  162. 162.

    ibid.

  163. 163.

    ibid.

  164. 164.

    ibid.

  165. 165.

    ibid.

  166. 166.

    ibid.

  167. 167.

    ibid.

  168. 168.

    ibid.

  169. 169.

    ibid.

  170. 170.

    ibid.

  171. 171.

    Feist Publications (n 3).

  172. 172.

    Supra section 3.2.

  173. 173.

    ibid.

  174. 174.

    Supra section 3.2.

  175. 175.

    ‘US Copyright Office: Report on Legal Protection for Databases: August 1997’ (n 161).

  176. 176.

    Supra (n 140) and section 3.2.

  177. 177.

    ‘US Copyright Office: Report on Legal Protection for Databases: August 1997’ (n 161).

  178. 178.

    Hodge E Mason v Montgomery Data Inc., 967 F2d 135 (5th Cir 1992).

  179. 179.

    ibid 139.

  180. 180.

    ibid.

  181. 181.

    ibid.

  182. 182.

    ibid 140.

  183. 183.

    ibid.

  184. 184.

    ibid.

  185. 185.

    Application of Feist decision, Tracy L Meade, ‘Ex-post Feist: Applications of a landmark Copyright decision’ 2(1) J Intell Prop L 245 (1994–1995).

  186. 186.

    ibid.

  187. 187.

    18 USPQ 2d 2049 (4th Cir 1991).

  188. 188.

    ibid 2050.

  189. 189.

    88F 3d 473 (7th Cir 1996) 480.

  190. 190.

    945 F2d 509 (2d Cir 1991); There was similar conclusion in the case of Nester’s Map & Guide Corp v. Hagstorm Map Co. 796 F Supp 729 (EDNY) 1992. This case involved a taxi-driver guide in New York City, where the claimant Nester listed the cross streets, which were useful and most important. Moreover, he assigned approximate street address numbers to the cross streets and avoided the actual street numbers. The selection was based on his knowledge and experience. In this case, the court held that there was sufficient originality in the selection mechanism; similarly, in a case concerning compilations of nouns in Lipton v Nature Co 71 F 3D 464 (2d Cir 1995), the court upheld the creativity and informed judgment of the claimant, Lipton. In this case, there was selection from numerous variations of fifteenth century text and manuscripts. Furthermore, the claimant translated the words from Middle English to modern English.

  191. 191.

    Key Publications (n 190) 513.

  192. 192.

    The 2nd circuit said arrangement “refers to the ordering or grouping of data into lists or categories that go beyond the mere mechanical grouping of data as such, for example, the alphabetical, chronological, or sequential listings of data” ibid.

  193. 193.

    ibid.

  194. 194.

    Key Publications (n 190).

  195. 195.

    44 F 3d 61 (2d Cir 1994).

  196. 196.

    ibid 67.

  197. 197.

    BellSouth Advertising & Publication Corp v Donnelley Information Publishing Inc. 999 F2d 1436 (11th Cir 1993).

  198. 198.

    ibid 1441.

  199. 199.

    ibid.

  200. 200.

    936 F 2d 671 (2nd Cir 1991).

  201. 201.

    ibid 673.

  202. 202.

    ‘Cable System’ was defined by the claimant Warren Publications as ‘an entity composed as one or more communities that are offered the same service by the same cable system owner at the same prices’ offering’; The Directory in itself was a comprehensive guide giving information on cable systems and included names, address of cable system providers, number of subscribers’, the channels offered, the price of service and so on and so forth, Warren Publications 115 F3d 1509 (11th Cir 1997); BellSouth Advertising (n 197) 1511-1513.

  203. 203.

    Warren Publications (n 202) 1511.

  204. 204.

    ibid 1520.

  205. 205.

    ibid.

  206. 206.

    ibid 1517-1520; “Although courts should, and typically do, analyze selection and arrangement separately, then tend to find both or neither selection and arrangement to be creatively original”, Polivy (n 59) 817; courts tend to use disjunctive reading at the time of assessing selection, co-ordination or arrangement in a compilation. This is the observation in the case of National Business Lists, Inc. V. Dun & Bradstreet 552 F Supp 89 (N D Ill 1982); William Patry, ‘Copyright in Collection of Facts: A Reply’ (1984) 6 Comm & Law 11, 30.

  207. 207.

    Warren Publications (n 202) 1520.

  208. 208.

    368 F 3d 77 (2nd Cir 2004).

  209. 209.

    ibid.

  210. 210.

    Silverstein (n 208).

  211. 211.

    The claimant said that copyediting changes related to punctuation, titling, or formatting but they were not particularly visible.

  212. 212.

    This reference will be drawn when discussing the relationship of Feist with Dataco.

  213. 213.

    Key Publications (n 190).

  214. 214.

    44 F 3d 61 (2d Cir 1994) 67.

  215. 215.

    It is equally true that Feist itself did not say about the amount of creativity and will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

  216. 216.

    Feist Publications (n 3).

  217. 217.

    Key Publications (n 190).

  218. 218.

    Hodge E Mason (n 178).

  219. 219.

    44 F 3d 61 (2d Cir 1994).

  220. 220.

    Working within the purely functional grid offering no opportunity for variation, Meade (n 185) 264.

  221. 221.

    BellSouth Advertising (n 197) 1446.

  222. 222.

    936 F 2d 671 (2nd Cir 1991).

  223. 223.

    Supra section 3.1.

  224. 224.

    Key Publications (n 190).

  225. 225.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 345.

  226. 226.

    In spite of the possible similarity in terms of selection requirement, there are differences between the two kinds of compilations. In a factual compilation, no one will claim copyright infringement in contents and hence, a compiler may claim copyright protection as long as a modicum of creativity is present in selection or arrangement. Whereas a licence is required to use the copyright works in the compilation.

  227. 227.

    368 F 3d 77 (2nd Cir 2004).

  228. 228.

    The issue of personal judgement/experience is also observed in Maclean case, 44 F 3d 61 (2d Cir 1994).

  229. 229.

    Feist Publications (n 3).

  230. 230.

    Supra section 3.1.

  231. 231.

    Corrections to text including punctuation or spelling may constitute trivial changes, Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 674, (2d Cir. 1998).

  232. 232.

    ibid.

  233. 233.

    It has been suggested that “selection and arrangement is a test of subjective authorship”, Jane C Ginsburg, ‘Creation and Commercial Value: Copyright protection of works of Information’ (1990) 90(7) Colum. L. Rev. 1865, 1896, and Feist said that selection and arrangement constitutes originality; On a different note, it is evident that post-Feist cases have maintained that only “a narrow category of works in which the creative sparking is utterly lacking” will not receive copyright protection, Feist Publications (n 3) 359.

  234. 234.

    Bitton (n 73) 631.

  235. 235.

    Key Publications (n 190).

  236. 236.

    Bitton (n 73) 634; Moreover, there was similar exclusion of residential rate customers in the BellSouth telephone directory similar to the issue of exclusion in Key Publications, Ethan L Wood, “Copyrighting the Yellow pages: Finding originality in factual compilations” (1993-94) 78(5) Minn L Rev 1319, 1334.

  237. 237.

    ibid; there was caution about how the issue of functionality has been used Meade (n 185) 262.

  238. 238.

    115 F3d 1509 (11th Cir 1997).

  239. 239.

    999 F2d 1436 (11th Cir 1993).

  240. 240.

    Polivy (n 59) 813.

  241. 241.

    Bitton (n 73) 634.

  242. 242.

    Key Publications (n 190).

  243. 243.

    Authors of most compilations would base their compilation on audience requirement. Alan L Durham, Speaking of the World: fact, opinion and the originality standard of copyright (2009) 33(3) Arizona State Law Journal 791.

  244. 244.

    Infra section 4.3.

  245. 245.

    Compilations must be effective for the readers and this means the user requirement, and the usefulness of such compilation should be taken into account, Justice O’Conner in Feist citing Nimmer said: “author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers”, Feist Publications (n 3) 340.

  246. 246.

    Durham (n 243) 155.

  247. 247.

    ibid.

  248. 248.

    Feist Publications (n 3) 363.

  249. 249.

    Polivy (n 59) 833; For example the arrangement was original in the Key Publications (n 190); In the opinion of Benjamin Thorner, “the idea that functional writings are unprotectable by copyright is wrongheaded as it hampers creators' incentives to profitably bring their goods to the public”, Benjamin B. Thorner, ‘Copyright protection for Computer Databases: the threat of Feist and a Proposed Solution’ (1997) 5(1) VA J L & TECH 27.

  250. 250.

    Jerome H Reichman and Pamela Samuelson, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in data?’ (1997) 50(1) V and L Rev 51.

  251. 251.

    115 F3d 1509 (11th Cir 1997).

  252. 252.

    Ginsburg (n 233) 1915.

  253. 253.

    Infra section 4.3.

  254. 254.

    www.westlaw.com and www.lexisnexis.com; This trend is also observed in the annual report of Reed Elsevier, ibid.

  255. 255.

    115 F3d 1509 (11th Cir 1997).

  256. 256.

    This situation was similar to the Feist case involving telephone directory, Feist Publications (n 3).

  257. 257.

    Furthermore the cable directory in question was not electronic in nature, thereby limiting the possibility of selection or arrangement as it happens in case of an electronic database, supra section 2.3.

  258. 258.

    COM (92) 24 final, para [2.3.3].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Intellectual Property and Technology Law, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India

    Indranath Gupta

Authors
  1. Indranath Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Indranath Gupta .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gupta, I. (2017). Feist, Not a New-Line of Jurisprudence. In: Footprints of Feist in European Database Directive. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3981-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3981-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-3980-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-3981-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation