docketing@steinip.com

  1-202-216-9505

Where Technology, Innovation and

Protection Come Together


Originality Over Effort: The Copyright Standard Set by Feist v. Rural

By Lauryn Bishoff


Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. is a landmark Supreme Court case that clarified the scope of copyright protection. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. provided telephone service to small communities in Kansas and also published a white pages directory that listed the names, addresses, and phone numbers of its customers. Feist Publications, a company that compiles and publishes regional telephone directories using local directories like Rural’s, requested permission to use Rural’s listings. When Rural refused, Feist used the listings anyway, copying some entries exactly and altering others. [1]


Rural sued Feist for copyright infringement, arguing that its compilation of names and phone numbers was protected under copyright. The case was first heard in District Court, which ruled in favor of Rural, holding that telephone directories were copyrightable. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. [1]


However, when the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices delivered a unanimous ruling in favor of Feist. The Court held that names and phone numbers are facts, and facts themselves are not copyrightable, though an original arrangement or presentation of facts can be. [1] That is, only if the arrangement reflects a minimal level of creativity. Importantly, the Court rejected the “sweat of the brow” doctrine, which had suggested that an author’s effort and labor in compiling information could warrant copyright protection. [2] The Court emphasized that effort alone is not enough; originality and creativity are required.


The ruling in Feist v. Rural became foundational in copyright law, establishing the principle that factual databases are only eligible for copyright protection when their content is selected, coordinated, or arranged in a way that sets them apart from others.


[1] Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) 

[2] “Sweat of the Brow Doctrine,” U.S. Legal Forms, https://legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/s/sweat-of-the-brow-doctrine.