Talk:Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Top‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

	Law
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. was copied or moved into Copyright in compilation with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Do we have a citation for the claim that a recipe is not copyrightable? I don't believe it. Why is a recipe not copyrightable, while software (which is just a recipe) is? I don't see why devising a recipe has any less creativity than, say, devising a poem. --Doradus 14:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Publications Int'l v Meredith Corp., 88 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 1996), holding that individual recipes were not copyrightable; copyright protection could only extend to an entire recipe book as a compilation. One clarifying point: the recipes at issue in that case lacked "expressive elaboration upon either of these functional components [of listing ingredients and directions for combining them], as opposed to recipes that might spice up functional directives by weaving in creative narrative." Id. at 480. In other words, anything superfluous to the functionality of the recipe could be copyrightable, but not whatever it is that makes the recipe a functioning recipe.

This follows in part from 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), which states that "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." A recipe is a process or procedure, and its list of ingredients a statement of facts.

I tend to view software the same way as you do, but conceptual consistency isn't going to win the day here when, if nothing else, Congress has specifically addressed copyright protection for software (e.g.,

DMCA) but not for recipes. Postdlf 15:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd also consider the application of the merger doctrine in this context. I believe courts initially found software protectable because they believed the function it performed could be arrived at through any number of code combinations—the code chosen was therefore creative rather than necessary. On the other hand, changing the ingredients or directions of a recipe may keep it from functioning as that recipe. Postdlf 15:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a pretty good answer. Thanks! --Doradus 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, software is copyrighted as literature. Interesting, eh? - A.Arc 07:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's not copyrighted as literature. It's copyrighted as an expressive work involving computer instructions. It's not considered literature. I don't know where you got that from.KyleGoetz 00:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that everything after thuue first paragraph in Implications section should be moved elsewere. It might be relevent in legal world but is not relevant to this article. Copyright consequences as well as similar cases in other countries might go in the article Telephone directory, or (if long enough) in a dedicated article "Copyright on phone directories".

Publications v. Meredith, Matthew Bender v. West and all the rest are subject to their respective articles and do not need here citation beyond inclusion in a bulleted list of articles to see.

Similarly I doubt Feist v. Rural have ever mentioned any debates between the U.S. Congress and E.U., or any of the latter is basing the negotiations purely on the former! Let's keep relevant thing together but separate the barely relevant ones apart. -- Goldie (tell me) 02:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support this split. Although (very) excellent copy, it needs to live in an article of its own as it strays wildly from the article name.

 Talk  21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak Against. The content is relevant to the article, although I suppose a separate article could be made, with a link at the bottom of this one pointing to the new article as "additional information" or something. -- NightKev 07:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak oppose or alternative suggested by Nightkev. I object to Bggoldie's assertion that this topic is so prosaic that it belongs in the telephone directory article. There are significant legal issues here that go beyond the case which are addressed very nicely in the article (and they are the reason I looked for this article). However, I suppose we could put them in a dedicated article, so that this page would mostly just be shell for the other one. nadav 06:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The content is relevant to this article. — Omegatron 22:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Omegatron that the content is relevant to the article. Argel1200 (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. The discussion is relevant and the implications extend far beyond merely telephone directories. I'm stunned to read that relevance in the "legal world" is thought not to apply to an article specifically about a Supreme Court decision! Kestenbaum (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While it's true the information could be the source of new articles, I don't see any reason why it should be removed from this article. It's relevant and the article is not overly long.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Feist bear at all on Major League Baseball's claims to have the right to control how its statistics are used? I've seen efforts to prevent rotisserie leagues from using it, or making money on it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]