Copyright Law: Feist & Databases Jody Blanke, Professor Computer Information Systems and Law Mercer University, Atlanta

Copyright Law Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

Copyright Act of 1976 Section 102 of the Copyright Act: “In no case does copyright protection … extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied …”

Feist v. Rural (1991) Major Supreme Court copyright case Refocused attention on constitutional threshold requirement: Originality Work must be independently created by the author, i.e., the originator Work must have some minimal degree of creativity, “some creative spark”

Facts Feist wanted to publish statewide phone directory of Kansas Licensed 10 of 11 regional directories Rural refused license Feist copied anyway (including 3 bogus listings)

Holding Facts are not copyrightable Compilations of facts are copyrightable as long as there is some originality in the selection or arrangement of the facts Here, alphabetization could not have been any less creative – no originality Copyright protects “originality” not “sweat of the brow”

Databases Copyright protection for factual compilations is thin There may be protection for “original” compilation and/or for constituent materials “Creative” or “Non-Creative” compilations of “Creative” or “Non-Creative” works (see Table)