搜索
1FEISTv.RURAL499U.S.340,1991JusticeO'CONNORdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.Thiscaserequiresustoclarifytheextentofcopyrightprotectionavailabletotelephonedirectorywhitepages.IRuralTelephoneServiceCompany,Inc.,isacertifiedpublicutilitythatprovidestelephoneservicetoseveralcommunitiesinnorthwestKansas.ItissubjecttoastateregulationthatrequiresalltelephonecompaniesoperatinginKansastoissueannuallyanupdatedtelephonedirectory.Accordingly,asaconditionofitsmonopolyfranchise,Ruralpublishesatypicaltelephonedirectory,consistingofwhitepagesandyellowpages.ThewhitepageslistinalphabeticalorderthenamesofRural'ssubscribers,togetherwiththeirtownsandtelephonenumbers.TheyellowpageslistRural'sbusinesssubscribersalphabeticallybycategoryandfeatureclassifiedadvertisementsofvarioussizes.Ruraldistributesitsdirectoryfreeofchargetoitssubscribers,butearnsrevenuebysellingyellowpagesadvertisements.FeistPublications,Inc.,isapublishingcompanythatspecializesinarea-widetelephonedirectories.Unlikeatypical*343directory,whichcoversonlyaparticularcallingarea,Feist'sarea-widedirectoriescoveramuchlargergeographicalrange,reducingtheneedtocalldirectoryassistanceorconsultmultipledirectories.TheFeistdirectorythatisthesubjectofthislitigationcovers11differenttelephoneserviceareasin15countiesandcontains46,878whitepageslistings-comparedtoRural'sapproximately7,700listings.LikeRural'sdirectory,Feist'sisdistributedfreeofchargeandincludesbothwhitepagesandyellowpages.FeistandRuralcompetevigorouslyforyellowpagesadvertising.Asthesoleprovideroftelephoneserviceinitsservicearea,Ruralobtainssubscriberinformationquiteeasily.PersonsdesiringtelephoneservicemustapplytoRuralandprovidetheirnamesandaddresses;Ruralthenassignsthematelephonenumber.Feistisnotatelephonecompany,letaloneonewithmonopolystatus,andthereforelacksindependentaccesstoanysubscriberinformation.Toobtainwhitepageslistingsforitsarea-widedirectory,Feistapproachedeachofthe11telephonecompaniesoperatinginnorthwestKansasandofferedtopayfortherighttouseitswhitepageslistings.Ofthe11telephonecompanies,onlyRuralrefusedtolicenseitslistingstoFeist.Rural'srefusalcreatedaproblemforFeist,asomittingtheselistingswouldhaveleftagapingholeinitsarea-widedirectory,renderingitlessattractivetopotentialyellowpagesadvertisers.Inadecisionsubsequenttothatwhichwereviewhere,theDistrictCourtdeterminedthatthiswaspreciselythereasonRuralrefusedtolicenseitslistings.Therefusalwasmotivatedbyanunlawfulpurpose“toextenditsmonopolyintelephoneservicetoamonopolyinyellowpagesadvertising.”RuralTelephoneServiceCo.v.FeistPublications,Inc.,737F.Supp.610,622(Kan.1990).2UnabletolicenseRural'swhitepageslistings,FeistusedthemwithoutRural'sconsent.Feistbeganbyremovingseveralthousandlistingsthatfelloutsidethegeographicrangeofitsarea-widedirectory,thenhiredpersonneltoinvestigatethe4,935thatremained.Theseemployeesverified*344thedatareportedbyRuralandsoughttoobtainadditionalinformation.Asaresult,atypicalFeistlistingincludestheindividual'sstreetaddress;mostofRural'slistingsdonot.Notwithstandingtheseadditions,however,**12871,309ofthe46,878listingsinFeist's1983directorywereidenticaltolistingsinRural's1982-1983whitepages.App.54(¶15-16),57.FourofthesewerefictitiouslistingsthatRuralhadinsertedintoitsdirectorytodetectcopying.RuralsuedforcopyrightinfringementintheDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofKansastakingthepositionthatFeist,incompilingitsowndirectory,couldnotusetheinformationcontainedinRural'swhitepages.RuralassertedthatFeist'semployeeswereobligedtotraveldoor-to-doororconductatelephonesurveytodiscoverthesameinformationforthemselves.Feistrespondedthatsucheffortswereeconomicallyimpracticaland,inanyevent,unnecessarybecausetheinformationcopiedwasbeyondthescopeofcopyrightprotection.TheDistrictCourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttoRural,explainingthat“[c]ourtshaveconsistentlyheldthattelephonedirectoriesarecopyrightable”andcitingastringoflowercourtdecisions.663F.Supp.214,218(1987).Inanunpublishedopinion,theCourtofAppealsfortheTenthCircuitaffirmed“forsubstantiallythereasonsgivenbythedistrictcourt.”App.toPet.forCert.4a,judgt.orderreportedat916F.2d718(1990).Wegrantedcertiorari,498U.S.808,111S.Ct.40,112L.Ed.2d17(1990),todeterminewhetherthecopyrightinRural'sdirectoryprotectsthenames,towns,andtelephonenumberscopiedbyFeist.IIA[1]Thiscaseconcernstheinteractionoftwowell-establishedpropositions.Thefirstisthatfactsarenotcopyrightable;theother,thatcompilationsoffactsgenerallyare.Eachofthesepropositionspossessesanimpeccablepedigree.Thattherecanbenovalidcopyrightinfactsisuniversallyunderstood.Themostfundamentalaxiomofcopyrightlawisthat*345“[n]oauthormaycopyrighthisideasorthefactshenarrates.”Harper&Row,Publishers,Inc.v.NationEnterprises,471U.S.539,556,105S.Ct.2218,2228,85L.Ed.2d588(1985).Ruralwiselyconcedesthispoint,notinginitsbriefthat“[f]actsanddiscoveries,ofcourse,arenotthemselvessubjecttocopyrightprotection.”BriefforRespondent24.Atthesametime,however,itisbeyonddisputethatcompilationsoffactsarewithinthesubjectmatterofcopyright.CompilationswereexpresslymentionedintheCopyrightActof1909,andagainintheCopyrigh