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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0764%3A18

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1991
- **Citation:** 499 U.S. 340

## 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 ‘
th

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
Copyright Protection in Compilations Of Fact.. 16

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

v

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:

Copyright Act of 1976:
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

Copyright Act of 1909, ch. 320, 35 Stat. 1075 _......... 11, 12

Computer Software Copyright Act of 1980, Pub.

L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015 —................. ee a 7
Miscellaneous:
Copyright Law Revision: Report of the Register
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

Copyright Law Revision, Pt. 2: Discussion and

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
v.
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.

23
|
i
|
i

2
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

a

.

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

7

nat RU
wari abit Was
jill i ai Tee
Wiel eee ane:
Va raha nlisth
alg Bag ATH Ae “das ATT
i

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
Register of Copyrights on the General Revision 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

12

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
el
vil
Lite
a
Hii

re
F
if
rhs
oF
3
i
ef

.
4)
}
i
i

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

7

requirement, as petitioner and its amici complain.

2

;
F
F

ui
ze
5 4
"

etl
iit

4
fy
al
at
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

id

a

#44133

ai

etal

i:

=

ie I
i

Het eTpigptls

BLS Hh

ie

HE
ill

5243.

rt i

é

;

Ha

$287

ie

UHHH EH RE iit

i:

nt

gas<

rey

ty lf 37 arate

iti Ait

: i a Au [ei
i all
sit at

I beta ein

hiphe

i

i} Th

$22
Hite

tf

tt

-_

a

ueertlis ah

m

17 U.S.C, § 501(a).

— ee
when—as
Ta-8a, lla

Hn in

i.

saleai! #2433
i ta
+83 sees, ‘ :
i a

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0764%3A18. Public record. Not legal advice.