- Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (Bitlaw)
The first is that facts are not copyrightable; the other, that compilations of facts generally are Each of these propositions possesses an impeccable pedigree That there can be no valid copyright in facts is universally understood The most fundamental axiom of copyright law is that "[n]o author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates "
- Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. , 499 U. S. 340 (1991)
Lower courts that adopted a "sweat of the brow" or "industrious collection" test -- which extended a compilation's copyright protection beyond selection and arrangement to the facts themselves -- misconstrued the 1909 Act and eschewed the fundamental axiom of copyright law that no one may copyright facts or ideas Pp 499 U S 351-361
- FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO. , INC. No. 89 . . .
derstood The most fundamental axiom of copyright law is that "no author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates " Harper Row, Publishers, Inc v Nation Enterprises, 471 U S 539, 556 (1985) Rural wisely concedes this point, noting in its brief that "facts and discoveries, of course, are not themselves subject to copyright protection "
- Compendium: Chapter 300 - Law. Resource. Org
See, e g , Feist, 499 U S at 352-354, 364 (rejecting the so-called “sweat of the brow” doctrine that provided copyright protection solely as a “reward for the hard work” of creating a work) As Justice O’Connor observed, “copyright rewards originality, not effort” and “[w]ithout a doubt, the ‘sweat of the brow’ doctrine
- Sweat of the brow - Wikipedia
Under a "sweat of the brow" doctrine, the creator of a work, even if it is completely unoriginal, is entitled to have that effort and expense protected; no one else may use such a work without permission, but must instead recreate the work by independent research or effort The classic example is a telephone directory In a "sweat of the brow
|