Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service

Facts

• Rural Telephone Service Co. was a certified public utility providing telephone service in northwest Kansas
• It published a typical white pages directory listing subscribers alphabetically with name, town, and number
• Feist Publications published an area-wide directory covering 11 telephone service areas including Rural's
• Feist requested a licence to use Rural's listings; Rural refused
• Feist extracted 4,935 listings from Rural's directory, verified independently, but copied 1,309 without verification
• Rural sued for copyright infringement

Issues

1. Whether a telephone directory (white pages) qualifies for copyright protection
2. Whether the "sweat of the brow" doctrine validly confers copyright based on labour invested
3. What constitutes the originality threshold for copyright in compilations of facts

Held

• Facts are not copyrightable; they are discovered, not created
• The Copyright Clause requires originality as a constitutional minimum
• Originality in compilations requires creativity in selection, coordination, or arrangement of facts
• An alphabetical arrangement of names and numbers displays no such creativity; it is mechanical, garden-variety
• The "sweat of the brow" doctrine is rejected; industrious collection without creative input does not satisfy originality

Ratio Decidendi

The sine qua non of copyright is originality, which means independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Labour, skill, and expense ("sweat of the brow") are irrelevant to the copyrightability inquiry. A compilation must feature originality in selection, arrangement, or coordination to qualify. Routine, mechanical arrangements (like alphabetical order) do not cross the creativity threshold.