Feist and Maps

Erik Oliver <oliver[_at_]dolphin.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
> Firstly, the copyrightable elements of maps are the selection arrangement
> and creative depiction of the underlying facts. One need only open a few
> different maps to realize that there are hundreds of different variations
> of even the basic USA Map. I have one on my wall at home that is
> incredibly fanciful with clever depictions of states based on their claim
> to fame and another from National Geographic that painstakingly lays out
> the state boundaries and capitals and selected major cities, etc.
>
> These choices make the map as an overall work copyrightable but that
> copyright would not protect against someone creating a listing of
> mountain heights from your painstaking work because despite the fact that
> you used selection and arrangement to decide to show mountain heights,
> the underlying fact -- mountain's height -- can not be protected.
 

    The comment on the protectability of maps is very astute. I would add just one comment: The form of one of the most common (and commonly litigated) types of maps is the real estate plat map. In many jurisdictions, local rules prescribe precisely the form the map must take. In other words, the mapmaker has no creative choices to make. A plat map in such a jurisdiction should be unprotectable under Feist.

    Paul Heald
    <heald[_at_]jd.lawsch.uga.edu>   Received on Tue Feb 18 1997 - 07:58:15 GMT