
	Where results make sense

Topic: Feist v Rural

Related Topics

List of leading legal cases in copyright law

Supreme Court of the United States

Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International

IMDb

List of United States Supreme Court cases

Clarence Thomas

Klingon language

Sui generis

European Union

Shakespeare

Tomato

10 Things I Hate About You

Les Triplettes de Belleville

Persian language

Antonia Novello

	Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Rural, was a United States Supreme Court case in which Feist copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural refused to license the information.
		Rural, however, had placed a small number of phony entries to detect copying and caught Feist.
		The court ruled that Rural's directory was nothing more than an alphabetic list of all subscribers to its service, which it was required to compile under law, and that no creative expression was involved.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service (1060 words)

	FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-07)
		Rural asserted that Feist's employees were obliged to travel door-to-door or conduct a telephone survey to discover the same information for themselves.
		Feist responded that such efforts were economically impractical and, in any event, unnecessary because the information copied was beyond the scope of copyright protection.
		Feist points out that Rural did not truly “select” to publish the names and telephone numbers of its subscribers; rather, it was required to do so by the Kansas Corporation Commission as part of its monopoly franchise.
	www.law.cornell.edu /copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm (6483 words)

	Feist v. Rural
		Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. (499 US 340) in which Feist copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural refused to license the information.
		The court ruled that Rural's directory was nothing more than an alphabetic list of all subscribers to its service, and that no creative expression was involved.
		WIREdata [1], which ruled that a copyright holder in a compilation of public domain data cannot use that copyright to prevent others from using the underlying public domain data, but may only restrict the specific format of the compilation, if that format is itself sufficiently creative.
	www.sciencedaily.com /encyclopedia/feist_v__rural (595 words)

	Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. (1991)
		Rural's selection of listings--subscribers' names, towns, and telephone numbers--could not be more obvious and lacks the modicum of creativity necessary to transform mere selection into copyrightable expression.
		Rural wisely concedes this point, noting in its brief that "[f]acts and discoveries, of course, are not themselves subject to copyright protection." Brief for Respondent 24.
		Feist points out that Rural did not truly "select" to publish the names and telephone numbers of its subscribers; rather, it was **1297 required to do so by the Kansas Corporation Commission as part of its monopoly franchise.
	www.law.uconn.edu /homes/swilf/ip/cases/feist.htm (7153 words)

	Document: U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Feist, 3/27/91.
		Rural's white pages are not entitled to copyright, and therefore Feist's use of them does not constitute infringement.
		Rural may have been the first to discover and report the names, towns, and telephone numbers of its subscribers, but this data does not"`ow[e] its origin'" to Rural.
		Rural's selection of listings could not be more obvious: It publishes the most basic information - name, town, and telephone number - about each person who applies to it for telephone service.
	www.techlawjournal.com /cong106/database/19910327feist.htm (7158 words)

	[WikiEN-l] Columbia encyclopedia article titles
		Rural lost to Feist because Rural had included every eligible telephone subscriber in the telephone directory.
		That is, because Rural had done no selection.
		Bleem (9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2000) for a recent case in which fair use was upheld for what many called an edge case.
	mail.wikipedia.org /pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011416.html (468 words)

	Feist v. Rural Telephone
		SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. Respondent Rural Telephone Service Company is a certified public utility providing telephone service to several communities in Kansas.
		Petitioner Feist Publications, Inc., is a publishing company that specializes in area-wide telephone directories covering a much larger geographic range than directories such as Rural's.
		Rural's selection of listings - subscribers' names, towns, and telephone numbers - could not be more obvious, and lacks the modicum of creativity necessary to transform mere selection into copyrightable expression.
	jcomm.uoregon.edu /~tgleason/j385/Feist.htm (621 words)

	Database Protection in the European Union
		The first two issues present considerable conceptual difficulties: in the first place, it may not be clear in a particular context which part of the selection and arrangement of the information lies in the organization of the underlying data and which part lies in the format in which it is incorporated in the database.
		Then, electronic databases could meet the Feist standard either by virtue of the creative choices made in the selection and arrangement of the data they incorporate or of the creative choices made in the selection and arrangement of their own structure or both.
		n98 However, even if Feist's expansive constitutional interpretation of the Copyright Clause were found to preclude the enactment of such legislation pursuant to the Commerce Clause, it would still fall short of the broader scope of the Foreign Affairs Power recognized in Missouri v.
	www.jus.unitn.it /cardozo/Review/Students/Marino1.html (4523 words)

	[No title]
		There is no doubt that Feist took from the white pages of Rural's directory a substantial amount of factual information.
		Section 103(b) states explicitly that the copyright in a compilation does not extend to "the preexisting material employed in the work." The question that remains is whether Rural selected, coordinated, or arranged these uncopyrightable facts in an original way.
		Rural expended sufficient effort to make the white pages directory useful, but insufficient creativity to make it original.
	floridalawfirm.com /feist.html (6964 words)

	MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC
		Under Feist, two elements must be proven to establish infringement: "(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original." Id.
		The Supreme Court in Feist emphasized that copyright protection for a factual compilation is "thin," and that a compilation containing the same facts or non-copyrightable elements will not infringe unless it "features the same selection and arrangement" as the original compilation.
		The question of whether or not Feist overruled West was argued and carefully considered by the Oasis court.
	www.federal-litigation.com /HCITE2.HTML (6177 words)

	SSRN-Feist Goes Global: A Comparative Analysis Of The Notion Of Originality In Copyright Law by Daniel Gervais
		Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. delivered was hailed both as a landmark decision and a legal bomb.
		In reality, Feist did much more than resolve a definitional tension: it determined that there was a constitutional requirement of creativity.
		The purpose of this article is not to analyze whether Feist was correctly decided, but rather to show that a Feist like standard is now applied or may soon emerge in key common law countries.
	papers.ssrn.com /sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=733603 (411 words)

	Feist Publications v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. (1991) [89-1909] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-07)
		Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. is a public utility that provides telephone service to several communities in northwest Kansas.
		Feist Publications, Inc. is a publishing company that specializes in area-wide telephone directories that cover a much larger geographic range than Rural's directories.
		The Court reasoned that Rural's white pages did not satisfy the minimum constitutional standards for copyright protection because the information they contained lacked the requisite originality, as Rural had not selected, coordinated, or arranged the uncopyrightable facts in any original way.
	www.oyez.org /oyez/resource/case/1643 (237 words)

	Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (Bitlaw)
		Rural Telephone Service Co. In Feist, the Supreme Court rejected the "sweat of the brow" doctrine that provided copyright protection for databases and compilation based upon the effort use to created the compilation.
		The most fundamental axiom of copyright law is that "[n]o author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates." Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc. v.
		As a statutory matter, 17 U.S.C. s 101 does not afford protection from copying to a collection of facts that are selected, coordinated, and arranged in a way that utterly lacks originality.
	www.bitlaw.com /source/cases/copyright/feist.html (6613 words)

	Copyright
		Feist publishes area-wide phone directories that encompass an area larger than that served by any one local phone company.
		These names are not original to Rural Telephone; the names existed before they appeared in Rural's white pages and they would have continued to exist if the white page directory had never been published.
		Rural decision, The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 24, 1991, B1) reported that "a federal appeals court ruled that listings from yellow-page phone directories can be copied by competitors as long as changes are made in the way the material is organized....
	www.bayside-indexing.com /copyrite.htm (2418 words)

	Eldred v. Reno
		Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. *Ferguson v.
		The inherent flaw in appellants' argument is the failure to distinguish between (1) the requirement of "originality" for purposes of determining whether a work is copyrightable in the first instance and (2) the power of Congress to determine the term of copyright for works that already have been deemed original, and thus copyrightable.
		Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), the Supreme Court was presented with the first of these issues -- whether the listings contained in a telephone book met the "originality" requirement in order to be copyrightable.
	cyber.law.harvard.edu /openlaw/eldredvashcroft/cyber/amicus_br4.htm (6253 words)

	FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code
		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.
		We granted certiorari, 498 U.S. (1990), to determine whether the copyright in Rural's directory protects the names, towns, and telephone numbers copied by Feist.
		United States, 498 U.S. -110 (1990) (internal quotations omitted), we conclude that the statute envisions that there will be some fact-based works in which the selection, coordination, and arrangement are not sufficiently original to trigger copyright protection.
	caselaw.lp.findlaw.com /scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol=340 (7294 words)

	[No title]
		Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. Ct. 1282 (1991), is the seminal Supreme Court decision on copyrights in compilations.
		However, as is clear from the second Feist element, copyright protection in compilations "may extend only to those components of a work that are original to the author." Id.
		Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., 499 U.S. that "a factual compilation is eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or arrangement of the facts, but the copyright is limited to the particular selection or arrangement.
	www.hyperlaw.com /appeal2.htm (9339 words)

	My services guide - rural telephone service (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-07)
		...any facilities in rural areas supplying telephone service to persons in rural areas, it may, for the purpose of continuing such service and...
		In many ways, rural telephone service is like a postage stamp--the cost of delivery remains 32 cents (soon to be 33 cents) regardless of the
		Rural Telephone Service Co., a 1991 ruling that says consumer addresses and phone numbers in telephone directories...
	my-servicesguide.info /rural-telephone-service (669 words)

	[No title]
		Rural Telephone, 1991), suggest that the legal debate over infringement lies in the fine points of technology and the law.
		granted to compiled lists by Feist, namely selection and arrangement, by depicting all possible combinations of these elements in one place.
		In this respect, ArborWay is the first, and perhaps the only patented technology that can overcome the narrow focus of the Feist decision and broaden copyright protection to factual lists.
	www2.thecia.net /users/arborway/W2.HTM (993 words)

	Nat' Academies Press, Rights and Responsibilities of Participants in Networked Communities (1994)
		Pursuant to state regulation, the Rural Telephone Company Inc. publishes a "white pages" telephone directory that lists telephone subscribers alphabetically and their corresponding telephone numbers for a certain geographical area of service.
		Although Feist altered many of the listings it obtained, several were identical to those listed in Rural's white pages.
		In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Rural's white pages were not entitled to copyright, and thus that Feist was not liable for infringement.
	www.nap.edu /books/0309050901/html/46.html (518 words)

	LawSchoolWiki: ClassNotesIntellectualPropertyDyalChand
		Feist wanted to provide regional telephone directories; Rural had directories for specific towns for its customers.
		Rural included fictitious listings to see if anyone was copying directory, listings appeared in Feist's directory.
		Feist had requested license to print listings, but Rural would not agree.
	www.bostoncoop.net /wikilaw?ClassNotesIntellectualPropertyDyalChand (4328 words)

	Copyright and Digital Works - Week #5 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-07)
		Review the White Paper's gloss on the statute on these points (and the copyright casebook or treatise of your choice).
		Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. Since Feist is in every Copyright casebook, I'm assuming most of you have read it already and need only refresh your recollection..
		Laura N. Gasaway is available on the Net (with copyright notice and an explicit license covering uses like these) (click here).
	www.law.cornell.edu /ecourse/week5.htm (549 words)

	Story: House Commerce and Judiciary Committees Vie for High Tech Leadership, 6/16/99.
		The CIP Subcommittee has been trying for several years to pass a bill to protect the developers of databases.
		The issue arose in 1991 when the Supreme Court ruled in Feist Publications v.
		Rural Telephone Service Co. that databases are not protected under copyright law.
	www.techlawjournal.com /intelpro/19990616a.htm (1828 words)

	Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone
		Rural’s selection of listings — subscribers’ names, towns, and telephone numbers — could not be more obvious and lacks the modicum of creativity necessary to transform mere selection into copyrightable expression.
		This is “selection” of <18 USPQ2d 1285> a sort, but it lacks the modicum of creativity necessary to transform mere selection into copyrightable expression.
		Rural expended sufficient effort <499 U.S. to make the white pages directory useful, but insufficient creativity to make it original.
	digital-law-online.info /cases/18PQ2D1275.htm (6972 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)