4 ms·
You have your example backward. Feist v. Rural held that telephone books are not subject to copyright. Just because something was laborious to compile does not
by bhickey 15y ago
You have your example backward. Feist v. Rural held that telephone books are not subject to copyright. Just because something was laborious to compile does not make it copyrightable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural
- marshray 15y agoYes, good point.
- carbocation 15y agoIn the US. In Europe, the law differs. Specifically, 'sweat of the brow', rejected by Feist in the US, is a factor in Europe: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html#directive http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html#directive
- looperator 15y agoWell, many formats of telephone book are copyrightable, particularly the "yellow pages" portions, where selection and arrangement into categories are applied, meeting the "de minimis thought needed to withstand the originality requirement". http://www.copyright.gov/reports/dbase.html http://www.copyright.gov/reports/dbase.html Many other collections of pure fact will meet those criteria as well.