Amicus Curiae Brief — Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.

Supreme Court brief1991

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

+ baie

- Rurat TeLePHone Service CoMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT

On Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals

1113 Westchester Avenue

White Plains, NY 10604

(914) 644-6424

Counsel for NYNEX

Corporation

(List of Counsel Continued on Inside Cover )

wali souaianans ie + 769-0086 - Wasnineron, D.C. 20001

a ’

“a , Al, Memes ™ ae

ws .

a ‘

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether copyright in a “white pages” telephone di-

rectory protects the copyright owner against wholesale

use of the directory’s listings in the preparation of a

competing directory.

(i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTION PRESENTED . i

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 2

ARGUMENT ouge 3

THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 PRECLUDES

THE WHOLESALE COPYING OF THE CON-

TENTS OF A DIRECTORY .. 3

A. Respondent’s Copyright Protects Its Compila-

tion As A Whole Rather Than Individual Facts.. 5

B. The Background Of The Act Confirms That

Wholesale Appropriation Of Data From A

Directory Is {mproper 13

C. Petitioner’s Approach Would Largely Eliminate

D. The Plaintiff In An Infringement Action Need

Not Prove That The Copyrighted And Infring-

ing Works Are Substantially Similar When

Copying Has Been Established ...........................

RE EE SS Ee a ee

(iii)

iv °

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases: Prge

Adventures in Good Eating, inc. v. Best Places to

Eat, Inc., 131 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1942)... 14

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Vorp.,

714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983), cert. disinissed,

a i i> ecemmeans 7

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S.

Oe eens 15

Cooling Systems & Flezibles, Inc. v. Stuart Radia-

tor, Inc., TT7 F.2d 485 (9th Cir. 1985) 21

Dun v. Lumbermen’s Credit Asa’n, 209 U.S. 20

EES TREE SSA Se SSS 14

Harper & Row, Publishhers, Inc. v. . Nation Enter-

prises, 471 U.S. 689 (1985) —................................. passim

Harper House, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 889

F.2d 197 (9th Cir. 1989) —.... eee 21

Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Ine., 618 F.2d

972 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 841

Se iasteicitieenensioncesidenindtietinndiiniiindaiceiret neenettenamebiiiettioes 21-22

Jeweler’s Circular Publishing Co. v. Keystone

Publishing Co., 281 F. 88 (2d Cir.), cert. denied,

Pf f OEE Ss er ee 18-14, 15

Leon V. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 91 F.2d 484 (9th

EY, Pee ae ae a ee ae eT 14, 15

Mazer Vv. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954) 000 14

Rural Tel. Service Co. v. Feist Publications, Inc.,

737 F. Supp. 610 (D. Kan. 1990), app. pending,

No. 90-8254 (10th Cir. 1990) 00000 19

Sampson & Murdock Co. v. Seaver-Radford Co.,

140 F. 689 (1st Cir. 1906) ..........02.2. 13

Schroeder v. William Morrow & Co., 566 F.2d 3

Ee 14, 15

Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d

49 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 298 U.S. 669 (1936) .. x

Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc.

v. MceDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir.

EEE ALLS ST a eo a 22

Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Donnelly, 35 F.

Supp. 425 (S.D. Fla. 1940) 00000 14

Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Nationwide Inde-

pendent Directory Service, Inc., 371 F. Supp.

I lait eatitintnnieiiiaiiitninieen 14

“7 = ee ae ee ee et me 6 o— ———ooo

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Southwestern Bell Media, Inc. v. Trans Western

Publishing, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 899 (D. Kan.

Rr eS ee ae oe ee eee 16

Teleprompter Corp. Vv. Columbia Broadcasting

System, Inc., 415 U.S. 394 (1974) ~.................... 22

Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d

904 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 863 (1975) .. 22

W.H. Anderson Co. Vv. Baldwin Law Publishing

Co., 27 F.2d 82 (6th Cir. 1928) —........................ 14

Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44

(24 Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159 (1986) .... 21

West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central, Inc.,

799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986), cert. denied,

OE ET eee 17

Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Labora-

tory, Ince, T97 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986), cert.

denied, 479 U.S. 1081 (1987) ~........................... 7

Statutes:

PSS ee 2,4

ES RE passim

I 5

ID cccccniccscscsescsnsense siictiienaitiiasiaiatle 2,6

Ee passim

TE ae ea. 22

I, ED dicrnscensnsasncsnessenstepnanastasesti 20

TE LT A eR 4, 20

ES EE 18

TT Se 20

Computer Software Copyright Act of 1980, Pub.

L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015 —................. ee a 7

Miscellaneous:

of Copyrights on the General Revision of the

U.S. Copyright Law, 87th Cong., Ist Sess.

0 UD) 11

- —_—T* —_——- =: ,

‘

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Comments on Report of the Register of Copy-

rights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copy-

right Law, 88th Cong., Ist Sess. (Comm. Print

1963) 11-12

Denicola, Copyright in Collections of Facts: A

Theory for the Protection of Nonfiction Literary

Works, 81 Colum. L. Rev. 516 (1981) ss 6, 17

H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976)... 12, 15

H.R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess. (1909) 14

I A. Latman & J. Lightstone, The Kaminstein

Legislative History Project: A Compendium

and Analytical Index Leading to the Copyright

pS ETE A et 12

National Comm’n on New Technological Uses of

Copyrighted Works, Final Report (1978) 7,17

3 M. & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright (1990) . 21

Note, Copyrighted Compilations of Facts in a

Public Domain Directory: The Criteria of In-

fringement, 71 Nw. U.L. Rev. 833 (1977). 17

S. Rep. No. 473, 94th Cong., Ist Sess. (1975)... 12, 15

— = " ntl i i BA ee pte a ae ae

Iu the Supreme Court of the Huited Stotes

OcTOBER TERM, 1990

No. 89-1909

FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC., PETITIONER

RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT

On Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Tenth Circuit

BRIEF OF AMERITECH, BELL ATLANTIC,

NYNEX CORPORATION, PACIFIC TELESIS GROUP,

AND SOUTHWESTERN BELL CORPORATION

AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE

Amici Ameritech, Bell Atlantic. NYNEX Corporation,

1 The parties’ letters of consent pursuant to Rule 37 of the Rules

of this Court have been filed with the Clerk of the Court.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

_ Two propositions are central to the arguments of peti-

E uur 3E Toe “7 iit: of

innit ei Hn

SHA ae ili Ui

% : stl a] =F, il ila = RET

Hell he — He: At Ht

HE HE ap 2 Hit rh

SHH Hea hire MTT

bjt PAGHHEI EMR ie

AUREL ERA RES TN THLE

Bila pHi ¥ 5% Hie

LH: nh ap iu * i ive

THA SH es HEE

iit H etd wutitti

vith ia US LPT Hen arte

a Re cht H it : Hut

agiiey ayeeai re 2 {8igegeseaned ii

FE IG | tie

itll FL He ui 13 fh fail

He En al

HLTUE lth fF ual jai :

ie at Aree be ae

' tt 1H Belg fapdlstintt

tate date Cal

TRA HTH eT

byt ity HIRE é iit ret Hi

Chie teal

iit EN Hh it 3 pesca!

i eit het i

‘all a

bE apie ae

ee gon

any persist)

et i i

Hina fe ile : i

it i i

tg eH tra Hels

ni Hunle

ef aft pitta

ih ii Auale

HA? i ii i! Hilt UG HL

: +P 3 fe

: sald:

i AWA

HES ‘i ila He

i cau ie Hig

HUHNE EH Hit ib eH f

Mi ts lit if i; Hire Hui

nat RU

wari abit Was

jill i ai Tee

Wiel eee ane:

Va raha nlisth

alg Bag ATH Ae “das ATT

nin bh s a5f-d4)

cfitte ult saytt]

i a ee

geet sentient EE

rit Hi Hie 1 ts

iB a HE my Hite ait di

In fact, the reason for the distinction is clear from

Section 103(b)’s legislative history. In proposing the

Section 103(b), the Register of Copyrights had a par-

ticular purpose in mind: establishing that copyright in a

new version of an already copyrighted work (or of a

work that had fallen into the public domain)—that is,

“preexisting materia]l”—is available only if the new ele-

ments would themselves support a copyright. Similarly,

8 “Collective works” are examples of compilations that are made

up of preexisting material. Collective works are defined in Section

101 to include such things as anthologies, “in which a number of

contributions, constituting separate and independent works in

themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.” Section 101

specifically provides that “(t]he term ‘compilation’ includes collec-

tive works.”

authorship.” Copyright Law Revision: Report of the

U.S. Copyright Law, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 9 (Comm.

Print 1961) .*

Expanding on this, the Chief of the Register’s Exam-

ining Division stated that, “[u]nder the [1909] statute,

as the [Register’s] Report points out, it is unclear that

made on this point was simply that this requirement be

made clear in the statute.” Copyright Law Revision, Pt.

2: Discussion and Comments on Report of the Register

of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copy-

right Law (“Discussion and Comments”), 88th Cong.,

Ist Sess. 65 (Comm. Print 1963) (remarks of Ms.

Ringer) (emphasis added). Put another way, the Reg-

ister’s proposal was directed to the question “how much

revision is necessary to support a new copyright in

what’s known, loosely, as a ‘new version.’” Jd. (remarks

of Ms. Ringer). Not surprisingly, then, none of the

comments on or discussion of the Register’s proposal

touched on compilations of fact. See id. at 13 (remarks

of Mr. Robinson and Mr. Kaminstein) ; id. at 65-88; id.

*The Register thus sought to make clear that, for example, one

could not obtain a copyright simply by republishing without change

a version of “Hamlet” that had fallen into the public domain;

similarly, he wanted to establish that copyright in a “new” version

of “Hamlet” (with, for example, new marginal notes) would extend

only to the new material and not to the underlying play.

ee ae ae eT

at 303 (remarks of Mr. Henn); id. at 372 (remarks of

Mr. Nimmer) .*

Sec-

Gongress endorsed this purpose when it enacted

tion 108(b). The Register’s proposal was adopted with-

significan I A. Latman &

J. Lightstone, The Kaminstein Legislative History Proj-

ect: AC

ht Act of 1976, at 62-81 (1981). Congress ac-

pons oo ‘ that Section 103(b) was “intended

s Section 108(b) was directed at this problem is confirmed

by consideration of its antecedents. The provision was designed

to “clarify language of * * * section 7 of the [1909] statute.

the

Discussion and Comments at 62 (remarks of Ms. Ringer). That

mat-

makes up a work. Yet compilations pure

fact, which this Court already has indicated are subject

to copyright (see Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 547), may

aut

vil

Lite

Hii

rhs

}

coordinated collection of data may be protected.

spondent contends for no more in this case.

B. The Background Of The Act Confirms That Wholesale

Appropriation Of Data From A Directory Is Improper

Although many of the relevant statutory terms are not

defined in the Copyright Act, respondent’s reading of

the statute is confirmed by the legislative background. As

respondent explains (Br. 25-28), prior to enactment of

the Act the courts uniformly had held that wholesale

appropriation of data from a directory was improper,

even where the second directory somewhat modified the

selection of data or presented it in a different format.

There was no confusion on this point; so far as we are

aware, every court to consider the issue prior to 1976

had reached that conclusion. And the issue had arisen

with some frequency: it had been decided by the First,

Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, as well as by

district courts in the Fifth and Eighth Circuits. See

Sampson & Murdock Co. v. Seaver-Radford Co., 140

F. 539 (1st Cir. 1905) ; Jeweler’s Circular Publishing Co.

v. Keystone Publishing Co., 281 F. 83 (2d Cir.), cert.

259 U.S. 581 (1922); W.H. Anderson Co. v. Bald-

win Law Publishing Co., 27 F.2d 82 (6th Cir. 1928) ;

Schroeder v. William Morrow & Co., 566 F.2d 3 (7th Cir.

1977) ; Adventures in Good Eating, Inc. v. Best Places to

Eat, Inc., 131 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1942); Leon v. Pacific

Tel. & Tel. Co., 91 F.2d 484 (9th Cir. 1937); Sowth-

western Bell Tel. Co. Vv. Nationwide Independent Direc-

tory Service, Inc., 371 F. Supp. 900 (W.D. Ark. 1974) ;

Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Donnelly, 35 F. Supp.

425 (S.D. Fla. 1940).

Indeed, this Court reached the same conclusion shortly

before the enactment of the 1909 Act, which itself was

to be “declaratory of existing law.” H.R. Rep. No. 2222,

60th Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1909). In Dun v. Lumbermen’s

Credit Ass’n, 209 U.S. 20 (1908), the Court addressed an

infringement claim involving competing listings of credit

ratings. The Court found that the

titled to enjoin publication of the

cause the defendant had compiled

through an “ ‘elaborate and comprehensive

taining independent information.’” Jd. at 23 (citati

omitted). But the Court understood the appropriation of

some listings from the original compilation to infringe

the compiler’s copyright, and it therefore remitted the

plaintiffs “to a court of law

requirement, as petitioner and its amici complain.

;

5 4

etl

iit

ieee

)

ea ee

| i ti int Hy rele fh

SHE EE i fies

; is wie sali: Seiad H

ci gee rl ede tial

A eT Hi Fil iH iit AEG

ville itell HUH Th es

‘tae tai | ie ni ld

iit , Z ? : +) Meth f

“Li uth i it il :

Thess 4 f pel ts Af

HE sila iat His ; fy.

nd ll otis ; ue -aedtdia ial!

iit tt a

THe bile at He le

#44133

etal

ie I

Het eTpigptls

BLS Hh

ill

5243.

rt i

;

$287

UHHH EH RE iit

gas<

rey

ty lf 37 arate

iti Ait

: i a Au [ei

i all

sit at

I beta ein

hiphe

i} Th

$22

Hite

ueertlis ah

17 U.S.C, § 501(a).

— ee

when—as

Ta-8a, lla

Hn in

saleai! #2433

i ta

+83 sees, ‘ :

i a

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.