Summary

Portrait of Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service…

Common sense tells us that 100 uncopyrightable facts do not magically change their status when gathered together in one place. Yet copyright law seems to contemplate that compilations that consist exclusively of facts are potentially within its scope.
The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable. The sine qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service…

It is this bedrock principle of copyright that mandates the law's seemingly disparate treatment of facts and factual compilations. "No one may claim originality as to facts." Id. 2.11 [A] , p. 2–157. This is because facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship. The distinction is one between creation and discovery: the first person to find and report a particular fact has not created the fact; he or she has merely discovered its existence. To borrow from Burrow-Giles, one who discovers a fact is not its "maker" or "originator."
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service…

Nor can Rural claim originality in its coordination and arrangement of facts. The white pages do nothing more than list Rural's subscribers in alphabetical order. This arrangement may, technically speaking, owe its origin to Rural; no one disputes that Rural undertook the task of alphabetizing the names itself. But there is nothing remotely creative about arranging names alphabetically in a white pages directory. It is an age-old practice, firmly rooted in tradition and so commonplace that it has come to be expected as a matter of course.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature