Directory Publisher Loses Appeal on Copyright for Compilations
Washington, Nov. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Companies that sell
directories, newsletters, statistics and databases failed to
convince the Supreme Court to back looser rules about how much
creativity is needed before they can claim a copyright on
compilations of information.
America's highest court today refused to consider a dispute
about when the act of selecting or arranging information can
provide legal protection for the publication of factual material
that otherwise wouldn't be eligible for a copyright.
The case hit the high court in a publisher's appeal of a
ruling that denied copyright protection to a directory of
American cable television systems.
The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said
Warren Publishing Inc.'s ''Television & Cable Factbook'' -- which
includes a 1,340-page list of information about all U.S. cable TV
systems arranged by the communities they serve -- wasn't creative
enough to get a copyright. By rejecting Warren Publishing's
appeal, the high court left that decision intact.
A parade of companies and trade groups, including Reed
Elsevier Inc., Thomson Corp., Phillips Publishing International
Inc., and the Newsletter Publishers Association, had jointly
filed a brief with the Supreme Court backing Warren Publishing's
appeal.
The Atlanta appeals court's ruling, they said, threatens a
thriving information industry and ''places in jeopardy . . . a
myriad of publications and databases that feature compilations of
commercially useful information, from daily reports of price
movements in the oil, gas, and forestry industries, to compendia
of medical information, to collections of specifications for new
products.''
Copyright law, the companies said, requires only a ''spark
of creativity'' for compilations -- ''not a towering inferno.''
Reed Elsevier, Thomson and other companies said copyright
protection for information products is particularly important
because of the growth of the Internet, where data can almost
instantly be copied and distributed worldwide
''Current technology permits the illegal copying, and
consequent destruction, of a work's market value with literally
just a few keystrokes,'' they said.
The case involved conflicting interpretations of a 1991
Supreme Court ruling that denied a copyright to a white-pages
telephone directory. The high court said an alphabetical listing
of everybody who has a telephone didn't require any real creative
effort.
To get a copyright on compilations of factual information,
the court said, a publisher must show some original thought about
how to select or arrange the information. The high court,
however, said the ''requisite level of creativity is extremely
low'' and that most works ''make the grade quite easily.''
While the Supreme Court ruled that only a ''modicum of
creativity'' is required in choosing among various possible ways
to present information, Warren Publishing said, the Atlanta-based
11th Circuit ruled that its cable television directory didn't
pass the test because listing cable systems by community is a
logical and commercially useful way to proceed.
Logic and commercial value, Warren Publishing said, don't
disqualify a list from copyright protection. The company said it
had its own method for selecting and classifying cable systems.
For example, it said, many local cable systems operate
in more than one community, and editors must choose under which
community a particular system will be listed.
Software Database
The case began when Warren sued a company called Microdos
Data Corp., which in 1989, began marketing a computer software
database called ''Cable Access,'' with information on individual
cable systems. Warren Publishing charged that Microdos violated
its copyright by using a list that was almost identical to its
1988 Factbook.
A Georgia federal trial judge agreed with Warren, and a
three-judge appeals court panel initially upheld that ruling. The
full complement of judges on the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit
decided to review the case, however, and said Warren's book
couldn't qualify for a copyright.
Microdos said the appeals court was right, because Warren's
decision to include all cable systems, organized alphabetically
by state and community, simply didn't require any real creative
thought.
''Originality by a copyright author . . . requires
subjective judgment, thought, or constructive imagination,''
Microdos said.
o~~~ O |
