Re: Feist and Maps

On February 17, 1997, Paul Heald wrote:
>
> 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.

Compare Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992) (maps depticting "the location, size, and shape of surveys, land grants, tracts, and various topographical features" held to be copyrightable). Sources of the maps included tax, deed and survey records; data from government agencies; survey records, maps and abstracts of titles from the land office; title data and subdivision information from a title company; and USGS maps. Mason determined the location of the surveys and real estate tracts and drew them onto USGS maps (in the public domain). The court noted that Mason used "substantial judgment" in selecting which features to include, and in reconciling inconsistencies among the sources, and held there was sufficient originality under Feist.

     Of course, there is no indication that Montgomery County, Texas, was a jurisdiction in which "local rules prescribe precisely the form the map must take." But it seems likely there were some guidelines that Mason had to follow. Is there anyone familiar with Texas land law who would know the answer?

Tyler T. Ochoa
Assistant Professor
Whittier Law School
tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu Received on Wed Feb 19 1997 - 19:13:11 GMT