I think it is too early to decide whether Feist would have a wide application or not. However, one thing is certain about this case, it forced courts as well as legal scholars to consider the issue of "originality", which seemed to have been settled, hetherto.
If Feist was to be taken as establishing a new concept of originality, the US copyright law [ as far as originality is concerned] would lie somewhere between the British law with its low threshold of originality: not copy+skill+labour and the Droit d'auteur system with its high threshold of originality: not copy+ creative contibution.
Makeen Makeen mmakeen[_at_]sas.ac.ukPh.D. Candidate
On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Bruce Hayden wrote:
>
> > The holding is a narrow one, applying only to alphabetical telephone
> > listings. The Court explained that the information itself (the
> > subscriber name, where they live, etc.) is purely factual, and not the
> > result of any original authorship by the phone company. Copying such
> > items of information was not impermissible copying under the US copyright
> > laws, said the Court. What's more, the Court explained, reproducing the
> > ordering or grouping of entries (alphabetically, grouped by letters of
> > the alphabet) was likewise not the copying of anything original;
> > alphabetical ordering is the classic opposite of an original sequence.
> > The US Supreme Court explicitly rejected the notion that "sweat of the
> > brow" was protectible copyright subject matter.
> >
> > To stress the point, the holding is narrow. It specifically left room
> > for the possibility that a publisher of Yellow Pages (grouped by
> > industry or product area) might have added sufficient originality
> > through the selection of areas and headings, and through the placement
> > of items into areas, that copying Yellow Pages might count as
> > infringement. And of course it limits itself explicitly to US copyright
> > law.
>
> I am not sure that I can agree with Carl's statement that the holding
> is narrow. I can't count the number of cases I have read since then
> that have cited the case as precedent. The two propositions that I see
> it most cited for are that "sweat of the brow" doesn't qualify for
> copyright protection, and that copyright protection requires a certain
> minimal level of original expression - which was of course missing in
> that case. (Actually, you could view it as two different aspects of
> the same point).
>
> Any other comments here?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> The preceding was not a legal opinion, and may not be my employers'.
> Orignal portions Copyright 1995 Bruce E. Hayden,All Rights Reserved.
> My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
> as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce E. Hayden bhayden[_at_]acm.org
> Austin, Texas bhayden[_at_]copatlaw.com
Received on Tue Oct 31 1995 - 14:47:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:18 GMT