Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
Headline: Court limits copyright protection for telephone white pages, ruling basic names, towns, and phone numbers are not protected and allowing competing directory publishers to copy listings freely.
Holding: The Court held that the names, towns, and telephone numbers in a phone company’s white pages lack the minimal originality required for copyright, so other directory publishers may copy those listings.
- Permits directory publishers to copy names, towns, and phone numbers from competitors.
- Prevents phone companies from using copyright to block competitors from basic listings.
- Maintains protection only for genuinely original selections, arrangements, or creative text.
Summary
Background
Rural Telephone is a state-regulated local telephone company that, as the monopoly provider in parts of northwest Kansas, is required to publish an annual directory. Its directory’s white pages list subscribers’ names, towns, and telephone numbers alphabetically; the yellow pages contain business listings and ads. Feist Publications compiles a larger area-wide directory covering multiple service areas. Feist tried to license white-pages listings from the local telephone companies but Rural refused, so Feist copied listings it could not license; 1,309 Feist listings were identical to Rural’s. Rural sued for copyright infringement, and lower courts favored Rural before the case reached this Court to resolve whether those white-pages facts are copyrightable.
Reasoning
The Court explained that facts themselves cannot be copyrighted, while compilations of facts can be protected only to the extent that the compiler’s selection or arrangement is independently original. The Court rejected the “sweat of the brow” idea that effort alone creates copyright. Applying the Copyright Act and longstanding precedents, the Justices found Rural’s white pages lacked the minimal creativity required: the directory simply published basic subscriber information and organized it alphabetically, sometimes under state rules. Because the copied material — names, towns, and numbers — were uncopyrightable facts or arranged in an unoriginal way, Feist’s copying did not infringe Rural’s copyright.
Real world impact
The ruling allows competing directory publishers to copy basic listing information for use in their own directories, while leaving protection for any genuinely original selection, arrangement, or expression (for example, yellow-pages ads or editorial text). It emphasizes that copyright rewards originality, not industry or effort, and limits how phone companies can use copyright to block rivals from using publicly useful facts. The decision reverses the lower courts’ rulings and vindicates Feist on the copyright issue.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?