Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co
**Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Overview**
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co. was a pivotal Supreme Court case that addressed copyright law, particularly regarding the protection of factual compilations. The case arose when Rural Telephone Service Company accused Feist Publications of copyright infringement for using information from its telephone directory in a competing directory. Rural argued that the effort involved in compiling the directory, even though it contained public domain data, warranted copyright protection. However, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, rejected this notion, reinforcing the principle that copyright protects original expressions of creativity rather than mere compilations of facts. This ruling clarified that while efforts to gather information can be significant, they do not create copyrightable material if the underlying data is not original. The case is often cited in discussions of copyright and intellectual property, as it highlights the balance between encouraging creativity and protecting public access to factual information.
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
Date: March 27, 1991
Citation: 499 U.S. 340
Issue: Copyright
Significance: The Supreme Court rejected the notion that copyrights should be granted to those whose only claim to copyright is that they gathered information.
Rural Telephone Service Company published a directory containing information that Feist Publications used in preparing its own somewhat different but overlapping directory. Rural sued, alleging copyright infringement and arguing that the effort they made to collect even public domain data was entitled to copyright protection. The Supreme Court did not accept Rural’s view, asserting the more traditional view that quality or creativity was entitled to copyright protection but not the simple compilation of material. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court; Justice Harry A. Blackmun concurred. This case amplified the Court’s position set forth in Harper and Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises (1985).
