IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR TH EIGHTH CIRCUI

No. 96- 2887

OASIS PUBLISHING CO. , INC.

Plaintiff- Appellant

WEST PUBLISHIG CO.
Defendant-Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRCT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINSOTA
BRIF FOR AMICUS CURAE UNED STATES OF AMRICA IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT

JOEL I. KLEIN Acting Assistant Attorney General

DAVI SEIDMA
Attornevs

CATHERI G.

O'

SULIVAN

S. Departent of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington , DC 20530 (202) 514- 4510

1. eN

K-

'i - "\ -

TABLE OF
TABLE OF

CONT
. .. ii

AtJORl
OF

STATE OF INT OF TH UN STATE ISS't STATE OF TH CASE
STATE

SUMY OF ARGUM

I. Th Copyrght On A Copilon Is Th
The Work Th
Components
n. The

Ar Orgi To Th Authr And Ony Ag

Prg

Ony Those Coponents Of

Copyig Of Those

Compilon of Argement of Oais' Argement Of West' s Compilon Of Cas ..
A. Oais

Prse

Ca Is Not A Coy Of The

s Prpose Argement Dos Not Mic Wes' s Argement
Pael's Conclusion

B. The

Re on the " Swea of the Brow " Thry
Copying of the Argement

Th Sta Paon

Coies Wes' s Argement Subseuently Rejec in Em

C. Describing West' s Argement Without Reroucig It Dos Not Constute
CONCLUSION

TABLE OF
CASES
Feis Publicaons. In. v.

AUTORl
Pqe( s)
499 U. S.

Rura Telqho

Servce Co. ,

34 (199)
Cu. 199)
CU.

pasim

Copur Asat
1986),

Interntion v. Ahai. Inc. , 982 F. 2d 693 (2
Servce. In. ,

Financilnnnation. In.

v. Moos Inesrs deed , 48 U. S. 820 (1987)

80 F. 2d 204 (2

Rawe & Row Publihers. Inc. v. Naton Bntp

471 U. S. 539 (1985)

Hutchison TelqJhon Co. v. Fronter
Internona News

Diry Co. , TlO F. 2d 128 (8th Cir. 1985) . 8
Prs
248 U. S. 215 (1918) ............ 7
Co. , 281 F. 83 (2d Cir.

Servce v. Assoia

Jeweler

deed , 259 U. S. 581 (1922) ................................

s Cirula Publihie Co. V. Keystne Publihie

8,

Kewanee Oi Co. V. Bicron COW. , 416 U. S.

470 (1974) .................... 8

Key Publications v. Chiatown Tody Publihie Entetpri. Inc. , 945 F. 2d 509 (2d Cir. 1991) ............................................. 9
Kiplie v. G. P.

Puams Sons , 120 F. 631 (2d Cir. 1903)
1937) ..... 8,

Len V. Pacifc Telqthone & Teleenh Co. , 91 F. 2d 48 (9t Cir.

Lipn v Natre

Co. , 71 F. 3d

46 (2d Cir. 1995) ......................
Tea A
1ysis and Trkine

9,

Natona 'R!iket

Asso. V. S,prt

Systs. Inc. , 1996

WL 44278 (S.
Nationa Busins Li !i V. Dun & Rradme , Inc. , 552 F. Su. 89 (N. D. m. 1982) ..
New Yor Tunes Co. V. Roxbury Da Inrf. Inc. , 434 F.

Su. 217 (D. J. 19T
. .. 12

Rad McNaly & Co. V. Flee Manapnen Systs.

1984) ..

In. , 60 F. Sup. 933 (N. D. m.

Schiner & Schmidt. Inc. V. Nor
Sony COW. V. Unive

Co.

969 F. 2d 410 (7th Cir.

199) .......

9

Cit Stdis. Inc. , 46 U. S. 417 (1984)
151 (1975)

Twentiet Cery Music Cotp. V. Aiken , 422 U. S.

"-..",.m."

Unite TelqD Co. of Mo. v. John
Wes Publihine Co. v. Mea Da

Publihie Co. , 855 F. 2d

60 (8th Cir. 1988)

If, 799 F.

Ce. Inc. , 616 F. Sup. Ce. Inc. , 79 F.

1571 (D.

2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986),

ce. deed , 479 U. S. 1070 (1987) ....
2d 1219 (8t Cir. 1986),

Mi. 1985),
11

Wes Puh1i~hine

Co. v.

deed , 479 U. S. 1070 (1987)

Mea Da

pasim

WhteSmith Publihie

Co. v. Apllo Co. , 209 U. S. 1 (1908)
Arc In..

Wi1iams

Eleccs.

Inc. v.

In. , 685 F. 2d 870, 877 n. 8 (3d Cir. 1982)

Wort v. Selchw &

Ripter Co. , 827 F. 2d 569

(9 Cir. 1987)
.......3

STATU
17 U.
C. 101
17 U. S. C. 103(b )

........................................... 3 6 .

17 U.

C. 107
C. 301

. . . . . . .. 4

17 U.

01' ll

MA
100th Cong. , 2d Sess. (1996)
1476 ,
94th Cong., 2d Ses. (1976),

R. 3531 ,

R. Re. No.

& Adm. News 5659 . . .
Cong. ,

Iqrite

1976 U. S.

Co Congo

S. Re. No. 473, 94t

1st Sess. (1975)

Unite Sta
S. De.
1996)

Prse

v. The Thomson CoW. , No. 96-1415 (D. C. June 19, 1996), Judgent, 61 Fe. Reg. 35250 (July 5 , 1996)

Fin

fi

of Jusce

................................................ 2

Pr Relea No. 96287, 1996 WL 337211 (DJ)

(June 19,

. __n_-

IN 1H

UN STATE COURT OF APPEA FOR 1H mGHT CICUI
No. 96-2887

OASIS PUBUSHIG CO. , INC.

Plati-Apllt,
WET PUBUSHIG CO.

Defendat-Apllee.
STATE DISTRCT COURT ON APPEA FROM 1H FOR 1H DISTRCT OF

UN

MIOTA

BRI FOR AMCUS CUR UN
IN SUPPORT OF

APPEL

STATE OF AMCA

STATE OF INT
The Unite

numerous respnsibilties
Jaws. The

adon stda for coyrght proon emboy a ba
rela
to the

UN STATE States ha a substti intere in the relution of th ap. It ha
OF TH

pror

of the intellec
stck beee

prort
pJOng
us

privat owners of expresion as an incentive
baic buildig blocks for future
crvi.

for

crvity and enlig th fr

Twentieth Centu Music CoW. v. Aien

422 U. S.

151

156 (1975).

Th Unite Sta ha an intere in prorly matag the
693 ,

delicate equilbrium
(2d Cir. 1992),

Co,pter Assotes Interntiona v. Alta. Inc. , 982 F. 2d

696

Congrs eslihed

thgh th coyrght Jaw.

The

reflec the

inre of the Uni Sta in enrig the pror preon of th bace fa th it ha rensibilty for enoreing th antist laws, which

pr

eslih a naona policy favori
inre. Morever ,

ecc

n as a

Sta is itlf a sub.,nt1 mari of th kid at ise in th ca.
Finy, the Unite Sta ha retly
June 19, 1996, the Unite

th Uni

pu

me to ad
of

th pulic

le reh

ta acon relag
Co. by Th Thmson

to the issue

di.
toer wit a
lice to oter
Unite States

Stas , togeter wit seen sts , fied an antnst suit

chaengig the acition of Wes Publig

Co.
Systm.

prose seement of tht suit. Pa of th
law publihers the right to

seement reuir Thmson to

st

pa

to Wes' s Natona Rertr
C. fied June 19 , 1996),

v. The Thomson COW. , No. 96-1415 (D.

Prse Fin

Judgment , 61 Fed. Reg. 35250 , 35254 (July 5 , 1996). In

ancing the seement , the
doe

S.

Deent of Justce stte:
not suggest. . . tht
for us of such
right to assert it

the

paon. The Deent believes a licens is reuir views concrng the extnt expresly relVes Deent signcace of anythe intellec prort riht claed by the compaes (West and Thomson). The Deent al sad th the paes ag th the impa whaver on any adjudicaon concerng such
valdity, or

Tody s seement , with its opn licensing reuirent

seement sha

have no

mattrs.
S. De. of Justce, Prs

Rele No. 96287 , at 3-4 , 1996 WI 337211 (Dl)

*2

(Jun

19, 1996). The Unite Sta

exre th
exre

vis

in a

Memoram

fi as amcus
No. 94
CI

curie la
(S.

month

in

Matthew Bendr &

Copay v. Wes Publihie

Co. ,

0589

'I

brief ag

th views.

STATE OF
Wher st paon
argement.
to a

coilon of rert

ca, wiut

more, coies the

argeent of th compil or otrwis ines
Apsite Ca
Seice Co. ,
and Statoty

any

coyrt inre in

Prviions Feis Publicaon. Inc. v. Rura Telqhone
Wes Publihie Co. v. Mead Da

499 U. S.

34

, 349 (199);

Ce. Inc.

799 F. 2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986) ("

Ma"

cert. deed , 479 U. S. 1070 (1987); 17 U.

101; 17 U.

C. 103(b).

STATE OF TH CASE
1. West Publihig

Compay (" West" ) publihes fedra

and

st ca

rerts in its
Natona

Nationa Rertr Systm. Since 1887 , West ha publihed
southern sttes ,

st apll deisions for four
Rertr

includig Florida , in th

Southern

Rertr volumes of th

Systm. Wes

al publihes Florida Cas , which , volume by volume , rerits al of the
in the Southern Rertr
" complet with Southern
, 1996).

Florida ca

rert " as they ap

Rertr volume and pae numbers. (Memoraum and Orr (" Op. " ) 2 (My 17 West regirs coyrghts on the volumes of the Southern Rertr. Oais Publihig Compay (" Oais" ) publihes lega matri in elenic Compa Di Re Ony Memory (" CD-ROM" ) form. It pro to (a) publi rert of Flda
apllte ca
in CDROM form , 1 (b) inlud cions to th

locn of eah ca
bre as thy

Wes' s volumes ("pael

cion ), and (c) inca th locon of pa

Th
now.

as

th text of Florida deisions fr Flor Oais inteds to (Op. 4. of Oais' pla played DO role in th deision below and is not befor th Cort

ob

Ca.

"' u_

ap with ca in Wes'

s volumes ("
a

st paon

). Before

cag

out it

plas,

Oais su for , among oter ths,

delary judgent . th

Wes ha no

fedra
not

coyriht proon to pae numbe in the Sorn Rertr( an th Oa do

inge any coyrht in Wes by reen to th pae nube. " (Op. 5. )2 "!
cross-moved for pa
2. Relyi on

pa
the

summary judent on

th isue.
Court'

Wes Publihie Co. v. Mead Da Ceual. Inc. , 799 F. 2d 1219 (8th
cert. deed , 479 U. S. 1070 (1987), th

Cir. 1986) (" Mead

deion

afg

grt of a preliminary injuncton to Wes blockig Mea' prose st pation , the dict cort denied Oais' s motion grte Wes' , and dimise two counts of the
complat. The court conclude

tht Wes ha a proteble coyrght intere in the

argement of deisions
an integr

in the Southern

Rertr; th " )agon of th

argement

pa of the argement and sha in any coyrght proteon in the argement

itslf' (Op. 15); tht Oais'

st pation would inge

Wes' s coyrght in the

argement of cas; and th

st paon

was not a fai use of Wes' prote matri
C. 107.

with the meag of the Coyrght Act,
As the Supree

17 U.

SUY OF ARGUM
Cort emphaiz
(199), " the
in

Feis Publications.

Inc. v.

Rura TelqJhone SelVice

, 499 U. S.
which ar

34, 349

coyrght in a

fa

compilon is th.

" Fac,
is

not th prouct of

the compiler

aurs,

ar no

pro by the compilon

coyrght; no is the effort involved in collg th fa. Any coyrht
to the compiler

in

lite

origi contrbution - the selecon an argement of the fa.

A

not

ads.

2Qis' s complat

al aleged antitrst violaons and st law clas, which we

copeg work do
argement. "
Oais'
, for Oa

no ine , even if the

unp fac it cota ar coie diy
arent

frm th coyrhte work , so long as it - do no feare th sae selecon and

Dl
would DO involve coyig Wes'

prose st paon

prose sily to ame it ca rert in mnm or chlogica Olr. But only th coyi of arent is at ise here. Threfore , th st paon would no inge any relet Wes coyrght intere, even asg th Wes' argement is suciently ori to qu for coyrght proon.
The dict
deision in
court'

contr coclusion was aptly ba

on th Cort' s pre

st paon in Lexi would inge. But the pael in relied on the arment th st paon might reult in users no purchaing Wes'
tht includig

prouct , thus derivig

West of

the ecnomic rewar of its effort in compilg th rert.

Th reilg caot be renciled with the Supreme Court' s rejecon of the " swea of the
brow "

doce

in

Feist . Accrdgly,
a

Mead is no longer contrllg law.

It is

tre th

st pate compilon would provide the user with inoron abut
sae
in th

West' s

argement , and inde might enle a user to arge the ca rert in th

way th West doe - at lea

se of plaing th rert in the sae Olr and
deing an argeent is DO th sae

insertg pae

bre at th sae

points. But

thg as coying an argeent. Whr or no a tb
inormaton to rerouc Wes'
rerouce Wes' s

pa might us deve
prose wmk woud not

argeent of the ca, Oais'

argement of the

ca. Undr

&i, threfore ,

Oais' prose st

paon

would no

inge any Wes coyrght intere in it arent.

"'- --.-.c-

I. The Copyrt On A

Coponets Of The Work Tht

ARGUM Copiltin Is Th,

In

Apim Copyi Of Thos caon. In. v. tm

Cone

Ar Oril

Pr

To The

Onl Thos Auor And Only

pron for fa
no to th

coed coyi fr
fac thselves,

copilons ext

teho di,

TeI Sece
ony to th

Co. , 499 U. S. 34

(199), which

th Supree

Co he th coyrht

coiler

Co regn
and the priciple

deit th effort involved in coil th. the tesion beee the prile th fa ar no

or

cotion, an
In so

tht copilons of

regn the teion beee the m
expression "
inormaton conveyed

fa genray ar pr.
s of "

pr

do, the

by coyrght

Id at 345. It

assuring) auors

the riht to

thir

and the end of " encoura(ing)

others to build frly upn th

id and
themselves
at 349.

by a work.

at 349-50.

Th Cort relved thse tensions by

emphaizg tht " the coyrght in a
not prote beuse they ar
not

fac

compiltion is th.

" Th fa

the prouct of an ac of auorshi. Id

prexig mari or of da th ar selec, corrin:.te J or ared in such a way
the reultig
work as

A compilon is defied as " a work fored
a whole

by

th collon an asbli
" 17 U.

cote an ori work of aurs. 40 Coyrht Ac pro th " (tbe coyrht in a copilon. ex ony dil\dsb fr th to th mari cotr by th aur of such wor
C. 101.

mari employed in th work, an
mari. " 17 U.
the compiler
C. 103(b).

do no

mari. Th

coyrht in suh wor is sc, duraon ownrshi, or sub
Although judicia

int

, as

imply any

excluve in th of, an do no afec or

rit

pr prg
en prexi
prct

, any coyrht

pron

in th

s

, no the opinons may no be " fa, " thy ar, is thus no bais for authrshi. coilons of judicia
undr

opinons dieretly

coyrht Jaw.

Th

trg

li fa

._._n

...--.- -'.u --. n

coyrht proon may extd work th ar origi to the authr . id at 348, where th
As th
Court explaed, .

ony to thse

copots of a

enmpa bo
word
exreg

int cron
ar

co orty
of

and " a modcu of crvity. "

Id at 34. If th

fa

but not the

pre word. Id at 34. Bu if .th fa sp fo thves prole
if at al , ony in .th mar
in whi

or,

thy ar

pr; an
th

au may coy th fa

expresion exi,

coilr ba

arged the fa " and then ony th orgi selecon an arement ar
at 349. Beuse such a coyrght

pr.
lie les in the

and

is th, coyig frm the coyrhte

wor is not

ingement " so long as the compeg work dos not feare

th sae selecon and

argement.

Th holdig ha ecnomic bite. The value of a
compiler s selection and argement of the fac
compile them , and the thess
The Court acknowleded th ,

fa

compilon may

th in the inustousness reir
th value.

of the coyright may permt oters to aprori
at fi
blush ,

such aprorition " may sem un, ibid.
nor

but it explaed tht

in

rety " (t)his result is neither unfai
the progrs of

unortna. It is the meas
at 350.

by which coyrght advance

scence and ar. " Id

th fnits of Coyrght is no the only concivable lega regie for Th Delegon of th Unite Sta of Ameri retly prose the Wodd Intellec an inteon tr th wou provi to dahth:se th excluive right to maer" of al or a sub mnt;t1 pa of th

inustous collon.
ce

Prrt Orn
the
of

prog

Prort 196) on Prse Dilomc Copyrght and Neighborig Rights Ques, Prsa of the Uni Sta of America on Sui Generi Pron CRM/7 (My 20, 1996). Lelaon prog such proon ha be ince in R. 3531, 104 Cong. , 2d Sess. (1996). The Supree Cort long ago held th th coon copeon or
cotets
Prry

witt rega to coyrhtailty. World

ex
IDll

ComifeP of

Oron, Coer (Dber
Jaw of
unai

Co.

mirorion pro unyrhte news

re,

Interntiona News Servce v. (coued... )

0.

&i

rec:itlted a boy of ca law th

thry to provide bro coyrht
fmts of mere

in

pro fa copilons,
for

ba reli on th so
Je

- swea-of-tbrow
thus

prog the
v.

colln. 1b

Co spify

Pac
:1I1al'

TeIhone & T
Co. v. Keyst

b Co. , 91 F. 2d 48 (9 CU. 1937), aD
Pulibinr Co. ,

Jeel'

Pub1idtine

281 F. 83 (2 CU.

ce. deed , 259 U. S. S81 (1922),

beuse th
352-53.

ca -ext
th compiler

arent -

coyr proon in a coon beyon seleon and cotions - to th fa thselves. " 499 U. S. at

or

Th Cort' s own anysi of th coyrhtailty of telehone diri

Hutchison Tel hone Co. V. Frontr

Diry Co. , TlO F. 2d 128, 13031 (8th Cir. 1985),
Cirla
, in

explicitly relied on

I&

and

Jeweler

tu,

relied on

Rlltcbinson

799 F. 2d at 1223 , 1228. Thus, Em
tht the

rerets a signcat

chage in th law

reg

Mead pael's proviiona

799 F. 2d at 1227 , 1229, concluions regag st

pation be rensidere
argement.
contiued)

undr the contrllg

stda of law - wheer Oais'

argement of cas , wit the prose

st pation, wil be a coy of Wes'

Assoiate Prss , 248 U. S. 215 , 239-4 (1918), algh the prepton prviion of the Coyrght Ac , 17 U. C. 301 , may lit su proon to th ca of Inc. E,nancialnonation. Inc. V. Mooy Inesrs aprorion of "
hot" news,

Baket Asso. v. $po Team Ana1ysi an Tnr.kne Syst. In. , 1996 WL 44278 at Tr se law may al provi soe proon IpLOprl *2-26 (S.
ciumstce.
of crviinvolved th It therefore to wher Wes' to permt coyrht proon. Bu crvity

808 F. 2d 204, 208-0 (2

Cir. 1986),

ce. deed , 48 U.

systc Se.
se al
in

S. 820 (1987);

Naton

'& ai. qutu

lI sp

Kewan Oi Co. V. Bicr

Co. , 416 U. S. 470 (1974).
th

wher th

argeent of a bok aJhacoyrht pr.teho S. at 363-6. for nesa qu arent of c8 exbits relve th quonto nesa to
499 U.
it is no

(conued

--r-

.u..

. u... - -

n. The

Of The

Aremt of Oais' Prpo Coiltin of Ca Is Not A Copy Of Wes' Copiltin Of
Aremen

A. Oais'

Prpo

Am Do
prose CDROMs wi

Not Mic Wes'
wmS811y 8

Arem

No one conte

th Oa'

ma th sae . . .

amgeent, . Em, 499 U. S. at 349, of ca
even any

as Wes'

So Re. Thre is not
wil not be

pla in th sae or. To th co, the rerd inca th Wes' s amgemen an th prose Oa arent wi dier substtiy. Th is sucient to eslih th the prose Oais ament
sueson th th ca
wil be

a coy of Wes' s amgement.

Court routiely anyz wheter an amgement
impermsibly coied by compag the ordrig of

pro by coyrght ha ben
l--tnn v Natre Co.

mari in the acse work with the

ordrig of matri in the alegedy inged
71 F. 3d

compilon.

tes of venery proble; defendat' s amgement of 72 of thes terms is " so stgly sim as to prelude an
46 , 470 , 472 (2d Cir. 1995) (platis amgement of
inerence of indendent creon " when 20 of

fi 25 terms ar dulica an li

sae ordr , and in four other pla four or more tes

ap in the

sae orr);

hi1er

& Schmdt. Inc. v. Nord COIp. , 969 F. 2d 410 , 414 (7th Cir. 1992)

no inged as compilon when it was no

co

(offce

th defent coie

suly caog 8 th orr
whe

prouct or oter tyica feare of a
argemet of cagories in busins

coilon

y Publicaons v. Clinatown Tooy
CU. 1991) (no inemen
faia

Publihie Pntewri. Inc. , 945 F. 2d 509, 515 (2

diry is protele, but

e:uminati on

reea

deide th

contiued)

ca.

gr disimty
diry);

beee arent in coyrte diry
enycl

an in alegy

ing
ca.

Wor v. Selchow & Rihtr Co. , 827 F. 2d 569, 573 (9

Cir. 1987)

(alha arent of fac eoin trvi
gae

org fa

en

by sujec

ma an by

Such a

in gera

fi se ca by co leel th pla th 8fuy
(arged chlogicay), beore " shee

con

ra aren

co

whe trvi

here would shw DO coyi. Wes'

ar he

on gae

of

Fl ca opin and

jacket memorda"

memor " which in turn

pre "tale disitions

(ar

alhacay); Wes

al ma eXtons to
it would "

genera priciples. (Op. 15. ) Oais

, in cotr st th

ar it ca
Co. of Mo. v.

rert in radom or chrnologca orr. " (Corr Memoraum of Law in Sup
Its Motion for Fin Summar Judgent
did not cotest
11 (citig

Abras Af. , 5). Wes aptly
no

th sttement. Of cors, ingement do
simty
of expresion.

reuir exa idtity

argement , but only substti
in the rerd for cocludig

Unite TelqJhone

Johnson Publihie Co. , 855 F. 2d 60, 608 (8th Cir. 1988). But we submi ther is no bais
th an " ord

obselVer " kL at 60, would fid Wes' s and

Oais' s argements to be
The
on qute

substtiy

JimilaT

dict cort did not hold otrwis, aptly reg it fig
dieret

of ingement

co

drwn fr Ma.

It brif dision of "

Inent by Sta
ibl1ity

'I Oa arge
Wes'
shws ony th

conclud th on argeent is coie frm th oter, si bo. Morever wi ca some chrlog argement wil reh beus bo Wes an Oais nay arge th wor in mor or les th sae orr th authrig co us. Th to prvide no ba for concludig th Wes' argeen ba be coie.
s,

th provi no bais for

argem an Oais'

ca in chnologca or,

thre wID be

soe

in

beJse Wes' s argement is in pa

beee

chlogica. But

ory

si

Paon " siply do no ads th cotrllg quon - whe Oais' prose
CDROMs wil

acy .feare the sae. . . argeent

, II

&m, 499 U. S. at 349 , of

cas as Wes' s Sothern Rertr.
B. The

Mr Pael' s Concusn Th Sta Patin Copies Wes' Arement Re on the .Swea of the Brw" Theory Suuenly Rejec in
, a divi pal of th Cort

nig beore Em,
s were no

conclu

th st

paon to Wes' s volumes impermsibly coie Wes' argeent of ca , even
though the alegedy

ingig WOtX and Wes'

similarly
thry of

arged. But its

aproch rets on the direte II swea-of-the-brow "
caot be
renciled with

compilon coyright and

West aleged in

Mead

tht " the

LES Sta Paon

Feare is an aprorion

West' s comprehensive argement

of ca rert in violaon of the Coyrght Act of

1976. " 799 F. 2d at 1222. The dict court , in grtig Wes a

regn
West' s West'

tht the

argement of cas in the Lexi

da diere signcatly frm

reliminary injuncton

the

West argement.

Fac with the arment th the Lexi " st

paon wil not inge

argement beuse its radom genera argement is entily dieret frm
argement. . . (and)

st paon wil not brig the argements closer
Cetr. Inc. , 616 F. Sup. 1571,
1579-80

togeter Wes Publihie Co. V. Mea Da
2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986),

(D.

Mi. 1985), &f, 79 F. dict cort held th .for ingement pwse,

cert. deed , 479 U. S. 1070 (1987),

(M

ne no

physicy arge it'

fJ opinons wIth its computer ba in ordr to reroce Wes'
argements. II 616 F. Supp. at 1580. Th is , it did no ma

pro

th Me' s wor did not

feare the sae . . . argement

&i, 499 U. S. at 349, as Wes' s. Rar, th cort

w--_.-

- ____n__

coclude . th (Mea

wil reroce Wes'

coyrhte
LB

aren
databa .
lt

by

systcay
usrs wil have

inrtg th paon
fu coputer

of Wes'

rertrs into the

LB

acs to Wes' coyrhte arent" 616 F. Su. Th ony surt or exlaon th th dict co in ofmc
Ra McNaly & Co. v. FI

at 1580.

th Lexi cod coy Wes'
quoton frm

ar wi

for it

coluson

amgi it ca
ent Systs.

as Wes did was a

Ma

In. , 60 F. Su.
collecons of

933

941 (N. D. m. 1984): .'

(D)at ar siply automat copilons re

inormaton cale of being reeved in vaous forms by an

aprori seh
th thry &m rejec:

prgr(. ) . . . (It is oftn seless to se in th
616 F. Supp. at 1580.

spifc fied angemen of da.
entily on

Rad McNaly , however

the bais for compiltion proteon is the proteon of the compiler s efort in collecg
the data.

" 60 F. Supp. at 941.

Whe th

Cort thought selecon and angement
, the

were the only proteble elements in the tyica fac compilon

Rad McNaly court

saw litte signcace to argement, relying on Prfessor Decola: . ' Th crvity
effort tht
engaes

th mahiery of coyrght , the effort th elicits judicia concern with

d McNaly in turn was quotg Rad McNal,) it degron of argement as the bais of proon for compilon by Nationa Busins Li s v. Dun & Bnclmwl . Inc. , 552 F. Sup. 89 (N. D. m. 1982), whih expre the viw beuse st inormon amgeent. . . ) an emphais upn magement an for in bemes even more meaningles in th pa. . 552 F. Sup. at 97.
Prfessor Decola. ci th

su

th

co

fa

coilon pron
laed

wit

pro

wou se

If it were tre th da in an to follow th an
elecc

coyig the argeent do not alow on to prove ingement witht prof of coyig. We doubt th it is tre, however, sice da lakig any argeent at al would
dicult to use.

siply cod no th coyrtintere in th argement of a compilon. Und Em, th imssilty

el

databa

neri

arent, it ine

_4______-

_m"

4-

_-0___-_- --.---..

unjust enchment an diincetive, ti no in th

angig, but in th
as th

compilg.

arJement formulation. . . is daneesly

lite. At fa vaue the raone incas

th the enti substce of
DO sub

a compilation.

ca be

pir as l

aneement of data is

ntal1y cqied

'" 60 F. Sup. at 941 (emha
Fac: A

ad (quot Rort

Decola Cqyreht in Coll

Thry for th Pron
referrg to th

Lira Work , 81 Colu. L. Rev. 516, 528 (1981)). However

li, th -arent"
by

of Nonfcton

forulaon is th

Supree Cort'

s. Spcay

ver sae arle

Prfessor Denicola ,

the Em

Co wro

(e)ven thse schola who believe tht

industous collecon ' should be rewar sem to regn

th th is beyond th sc

exig coyright law. " 499 U. S. at 360. Th Cort affIrmed the grt of a preliminary injuncton in Me, witout quesonig the ditrct cort' s regntion th the Lexi angement of ca diere signcatly frm
Wes' s. It assert th Mea'

prose st paon

would inge Wes' s coyrght in

the angement beuse , in combinon with anoter feare of Lexi , it would permt Lexi
users " to view the angement

of cas in every volume of Wes' s Natona Rertr

Systm " 799 F. 2d

at 1227 ,

but it emphaiz tht it would have fou

ingeent even if

tht ha DO be the ca. It is engh , th Cort expJaed, th

counica

to users "

th locon in Wes'

aren of spc poons of text, " wit
to pu

st paon

the relt th " comer would no lo

ne

Wes'

as of Wes'
volumes ,

angeent. Sin knwlee of th

loon of

op an pa

rers to ge ever
ma posion.

opinons wi Wes' s argement is

lae pa of th ren

on would purcha Wes'

th LBS st

paon feare woud adersly afec Wes'

Id at 1228.

Thus ,

th Co

did no exla why

councag loon - th is, dein

Wes'

arement - is th sae th as coyi Wes' argeent. Raer, th Co let of diy fr th fa of th counon to th councaon. In it vi, th vi of pana is th it pe un of iD coUeon. aprorin of th

fi

UD

ecc
st

co

ma cle th, as a ma of coyrht Jaw, th aproon is not unai, an th th te is no th prr te pa 7 &m. Asg the coyi of pro ament, th reltig impa on Wes' ma pon would 17 D. prorly be coidere in ading fa us deen to
&m, however
of ingement. ingeent.

107(4) (fai use

anysis to coder " the efec of th
But

use

upn th

poti ma for or
derminati on
of

value of the coyrghte work" ).

unr Em

it plays no role in a

wheter prote argement ha be coied.

th fa

beuse citaons to Wes pae numbers ar merely of fac, th Cort focse on Wes' s effort in collecg any coyig of eleents: - Th naes, , an phone nubers in a telehone ar ' us of is no coyrt inement, coyi eah an every Rutchin Telqho Co. v. Co. 79 F. 2d at 1228, 2d 128 Huthin preisy th of coyrht in Em; it even

IOSimly, in rendig to the arment th

adses

fa rar th

cig

re on
(8t CU. 1985.

l. an

&i.

pa

JI.
in

Jeweler

orgi fa' thh isla Fro lig is an inent vi ad Cila. TlO F. 2dat 1 , two careec reec spy

st paon do no inge stents

diry

Di

TlO

Co quot th Sen Rert on th Coyrht Publiher. Inc. v. Naton Bntewri. 471 U. Ac of 1976 , as quot 539, 568 (1985): "' (A) us th sula any pa of th no ma coyrte work woud ordy be code an ingeent. '" 79 F. 11r & Row however , involved ady ver coyi of pro expreon , 471 U. S. at 548-49,
In it

ingeent anysi,
fa use.

th Rawer & Row

for a

2d at 1228.

and the issu

was

...u.

C. Debin Wes'
As the

Amem W'ltout Reproci It Do Not Consitte Copyi of the
Amement
pael observed

st paon counica to users .the locon

Wes' s argement of
coyrght, however

pro ori

spc portons of text. . 79 F.2d at 1228. A coilon

not

pro even origi coponets ag

co
derin.

of th

toica or oter tale of contts , any
such fidig aids would gm Wes' s

co,

viy any inx, any or any otr fig aid woud
do not mea tht.
though they might be sad to

coon ag coyig; it

counicate inonnaton abut West' s

argement. 12 But surely th

argement, even

describe it.
West contends tht the

cobinon of the deed inormon provide by
rert
reders Oais'

pagion with the text of the ca
West argement.

It is tme , of cours , tht a

st-pa

prose prouct a coy of the
collecon of ca rert might

have a more substati ecnomic impact on West
users might regar it as a substtute for Wes' s

th oter ty of fidig aids beuse
use

prouct. Inde, a user cold

the

inonnation provide by the

st paon to rege the ca

rert provide by Oais

into a compiltion arged in the sae maner as Wes'
l2pew

rert.
New Yor

Da Interface. Inc. , 434 F. Sup. 217 (D. J. 1977), th dict prliminary inx to th New Yor Tunes Inx. injuncton publicaon of a persna nae of succ in liht of fa us fars th Although the cort tht the "pers nae inx diers substy frm th Ties Inx , in fonn

ca ads ingeent by inxig.

In

Ties Co. v. Roxbury
, it

ag

de

cort deed a

lili

areement. and fuon . ML at 226 (emphais ad), even thh it counca the locons in the Tunes Inx at which pacu persna naes cold be fou. Th court

gr
11

with increulity the th a coyrhte wor caot be inxed without permsion of th holders of th coyrht to th ori work. Kjlie v. G. P. 'Putnam s Sons , 120 F. 631 , 635 (2d Cir. 19(3) (defents . were at libert to make and publi an inx " of coyrghte mari).
" :k at 22425.

platis arent .

Undr &i,

however,

th

ecc im on th de
if Oais

for Wes'

caot just a fig

of inement

ha no coie an

pa mi us th inorm abt Wes' maen provi by th st paon to coy Wes' maen ju such for inen or liilty fig. Alh usrs ' acon may le to viou
argement. Nor ca th possil
for cobury inement UDr
aleged to be lile lacks th
riht to

th a tb

or

copilon
elent of Wes'

ce

li ca stce ner

be fou

if th
actn:.l1

col th couct of th

invidu who

performs the inrigement Sony COW. v. Univers City Studios. Inc. , 46 U. S. 417 , 437
(1984), and th work ha substti
ca be

eslied with

re

nogig use, kL at 442. Neiter

for of

liilty

to the Oais CDROMs. Neiter the deed nare of the

inormaton provided by the

st paon nor the combinon of st paon with a
rert

compilon of unprote ca rert , arged in a dierent manr th Wes' s

ca suffce to render Oais' prose prouct a coy of Wes' s angement.
Wes ha assert in oter litigation tht
17 U.
C. 101 ,
the

defition of " coies " in the Copyrght Act

justes

trg st-pa compilons as coies of it arement,
West'

even if the
angement.

ca rert ar anged dierently, beuse the user cold rere
See. e. , West Publig
10,

Copay Memora of Law in Opsition to

Plati Maw Beder & Compy s Moton for S'Jmmary Judent 7- ).atthPw Y. 199). Th Beder & Co,py v. Wes PublihiJ Co. , No. 94 CI 0589 (S.

stte provide (empha ad): Copies " ar mari objec, otr th
any

phonorerd in which a work is fied an which th wor ca be communicate , eith or wit th ai of percived. tqrouce. or otrwis objec, ot th a machi or device. The term . coies " inlude the phonorerd, in which th work is

met now knwn or

lar deelop,

fr

fi fi.

diy ma

u-

it fa , th deon de fion of the coyrghte work in a mari objec, DO the fion dieret work frm which the coyrte work may be re; Wes' arent bes th quon
Th defition do Dot supprt Wes'
arent. On
of a

with the

whr Oais' prose CDROM is a

ma clea th the cla wi .and" was to de wi th prle hllman . 13 It ha nog to do wit the work fied in me DO deed to be re
by

be

fion

of Wes' s work .

in

Th

leve hiry

queson wheter a compilon DO arge lie Wes' s neerteles coies Wes'

pro
pa

argement.

Actace of Wes' arment th includig inormaton th would alow a th
to rerete West'

s argement in a compilon of
coying Wes' s

unro ca rert ared
have far-rechig

dierently consttutes

argement would

consuences.

, if the orderig of a coyrighte compilon of
facs in tht
compiltion ,

unpro fac were ba on the

under Wes' s rationae it would sem to be ingement to obta

No. 473 ,
52 (1976),

l'Te clase serves " to avoid the arcia and laely unjusted dictons , derived frm cas WhteSmith Publihie Co. v. Apllo Co. , 209 U. S. 1 (1908). " S. Re.
such as

94th Cong. ,

WhteSmith held th a pia roll veron of beuse the perforons in th pia roll wer DO a for

Wi1iams PJecnics.

rerite
an si

1st Sess. ,

at 51 (1975); H. R. Re. No. 1476 , 94th Cong. , 2d Sess. , at

1976 U. S.
Inc. v.

Arc Inrn.. Inc. , 685 F. 2d 870
of

Co Cog. & Ad. News 5659, 5665 (Dot
8T!

or
the ai

inge coht shnoon inllgtole to
music did DO

8 (3d Cir. 1982).

proteon of the day " cover(ed
or melody which the

th peoraons corrnd to th Ol of th no in the coyrighte com-Psition. Id at 10. Th Co rejec th contetion th coyrght
the position

human eye and thus did DO coy th
of

sh music, 20 U.

S. at 17- 18,

even thgh

CDROM cold not possibly inge th coyrht on prite bok , even if th CDROM cotaed digiti of every pae in the bok , arged in the sae seuece as in the bok.

im

co
al

mea of expresion of th ordr of which proce ha inven. " Id at 11. If th wer st th law , a

no

thse fa frm

aner so an publi th
fi copilon

in a diere

orr.

To

th it coied

th

s arent, th se

copilon would prely
to

es

cla

have to leve out fa fOU in th

aren
ob

fi coilon, Je it alw th pa

re

of th

fi coon.
may

A hypetca exaple
frm th 199

Ce

cla th impli of Wes' s poiton. Suse of th Uni Sta da corng every co in the

Unite Sta an publihe a compilon of

th da, lig th

conties in

dein

orr of one of th include da eleents , th prorton of th

poon

coG'"f
maes ,

maes of ages 18 thugh 40. Supse furter th th argeent, which may mee the

&i te of origity 15 and which may intere those mar proct to adt

is

on th da fou in the Some compiltions ar arged in ordrs not Ypton , for exaple , th compilon was arge acrdg to the compiler esetc judgents. 71 F. 3d at 470. The coyrht on a volume of Sha' sonnet, al in the public domai, arged in ordr of the edtor s judgent of esetc merit would , we assume , prote th origi argement. Anoter edtor could , without volume and publi in a dierent the coyrght , coy the sonnet frm argement. But as we undersd Wes' s priciple, it would beme ingeent if the merely tell th rer th edtor of the send volume were to include an in th volume. Supse th two prir copilers ha ordr in which the sonnet an dieret, of eah publihe th sonnet in ordr of thir inge th coyrhts on bo prior merit. Undr Wes' s priiple , it woud eah volumes to publih the sonn in st a dieret order whie inludi two tellg th rer th ordr in which OD of th pror volumes ha
compilon. In

ba

ingig

ap

fi

se, apy
is

th apdi th

th

ap, publi th so.
of a

esat esc

argeen copilon ca argeent put to a mechanicay pro"P-&i cronthdo no relve whe thimpli apli cr, by coyrt if of th is crve. &i, however, an aren
law

pr.
ex

but

th choice

Alhaca ordrig is mechaca in aplicaon , yet th Sue Co, holdig th , thght it AJhaca orri of a tehone nessary to expJa th th chic of alca ord for a teleho is an in an so coonla th it ha coe to be agld prace, fiy
the _

as a

threfore) do no

mar of co.
poss th

ro trn
. . . It is

di

th suh

was no

minima1

crve sp reuir by th Coyrght Ac. - 499

no only

unori,

it is

pracay inle

pro di

(and

(co...

pro by
al the

th fi' coyrht on

th copilon. Undr Em, anr
nse even

fi may coy

da frm th fi

fi' s

copilon , whie argig

it coilon alhacay

thh th anent of th coilon is pro by coyr, th da thlves ar DO, an th send copilon do no .fea th sae . anen,. &l, 499 U. S. at 349 , as
by st an

coty. It

may do 10

fi. But th se
argement of the

coilon
fi ,

co al th inoron

a user

ne to

re

the

an so unr Wes'

intereon of th coyig of
th coyright on th
fi.

argement

cron of the send
unrote.

copilon would inge

West' s position therefore

pro the fa thmselves in many cistce where
new tehnologies , new meas of
We have

would leave them

Ths ca , lie Ma before it, arse priy bese
maAAgig

inormon bee availe , a fruent event in the inormon age.
computer

sehale dabas and in CD-ROM prouct, new ways workg with the raw matri of lega reh - ca rert , sttes, and oter matri tht once only in prit form. Neither we nor th Co ca prect wha new
sen , in on-lie

ap

tehnologica deelopments wil next yea or in
practce of Jaw

th next

dede furter reolutioni the
to al.

an make th

substce of Jaw more rey avale

By mag clea

lled)
S. at 363.

be no ingemen even unr Wes' in ord of the fi publir publir poulaon , an the

l'To avoi ingi un Wes' prile, th compion publir of th of woud have to oI th da corng th prorton of th polaon woud da. An of ag 18 40, even th Em woud alow coyig

thh

se

th th prle wort li th coes in a dieret Olr.
if th fi copilon arged th ent of th mor of th coty'

coisg

se

- .n .- .. n.. -.-..

.. .om "--

th lite

sc of coyrht proon for fa coilon, &i cle
CONCLION

th way for

th creve deelopents. It shd be followed here.
Th Co

Rey subm.
JOEL I.

sh

reer th judent

beow aD

rend fo

fu

prin
Attnm

gs.

Ace Auiuut
Geera

CA1H
Ateys
S.

DAVI SEIMA

G. O'

SUU AN

Deent of Jusce 950 Peylva Ave. NW
Washigtn, DC

205301

(202) 514-510

'''n -.-..'"' '--

CETICATE OF SERVICE

I cert th , on th 9t day of Seber, 1996

, I

cause two coies of the foregoing

BRI FOR AMCUS CU

UN

STATE OF AMCA IN SUPPORT OF
on:

APPmL to be leJVed by Fed Ex
Jos I. Rojas, Es.

Bro an Cal
Sute 3300 201 Soth

Bisyn Boevar

Mi Ceter

, FL 33131

Counl for Oais
Joseh M. Musilek ,

Publihig Co.

Mi li ea

2200 Washigt 100 Washigtn Avenue South MN 5 401

Es. Sha Pauin Lokrdge Grida & Holsin

Squ

Counsel for Wes Publihig

Co.

0_"
m..._

- n-