Are Facts Copyrightable? The Compilation Exception Explained
Meta description: Learn why facts generally are not copyrightable in the United States, when a factual compilation may receive protection, and what that means for databases, research, and reuse.
Facts are essential to news reporting, research, business, and public discussion. In the United States, however, copyright generally does not give anyone ownership of facts themselves. A factual work may still receive limited protection when its creator makes original choices about which facts to include or how to arrange them. This distinction, known as the compilation exception, helps explain when a database, directory, or research collection can be protected—and when others may reuse its underlying information.
The Basic Rule: Facts Are Not Copyrightable
U.S. copyright law protects original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium, including books, photographs, music, and software. It does not protect ideas, methods, systems, or facts as such. The statute says that copyright protection does not extend to “any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery,” regardless of how it is described or presented. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
A fact is information that is not created by the author. Examples include a person’s birth date, a building’s address, a game’s final score, or a chemical element’s atomic number. Someone may spend substantial time discovering, checking, or gathering these facts, but effort alone does not make them copyrightable. Other forms of law, contracts, or access controls may affect how information can be used, but they do not change the basic copyright rule.
For example, a reporter may verify a city council vote. The vote and its outcome are facts; the reporter cannot use copyright to prevent others from reporting them. The reporter’s original article, including its wording and expressive presentation, may be protected. Another writer can report the same event using independently written language.
What Is the Compilation Exception?
A compilation is a work formed by collecting and assembling existing materials or data. Under 17 U.S.C. § 101, a compilation may qualify for copyright if the materials are selected, coordinated, or arranged in a way that is sufficiently original. The law therefore protects some original expression in a factual collection, but it does not turn the facts themselves into private property.
Examples may include an unusually organized directory, a curated anthology, or a database whose creator makes original choices about which records to include and how to group them. The key question is not whether the collection is useful, expensive, or comprehensive. It is whether its selection, coordination, or arrangement reflects at least a modest degree of creativity.
This is sometimes called the compilation exception because a work made mostly of unprotectable facts can still have a copyrightable layer of original authorship. “Exception” does not mean that facts suddenly become copyrightable. It means that the author’s original contribution to the collection may be protected.
The Supreme Court’s Feist Decision
The leading case is Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Rural Telephone published a white-pages directory listing subscribers alphabetically, along with their towns and telephone numbers. Feist copied many listings for a regional directory after Rural refused to license the information.
The Supreme Court held that Rural’s listings were not protected by copyright. The names, towns, and phone numbers were facts, and placing them in alphabetical order was a standard arrangement with no original creativity. The Court rejected the “sweat of the brow” theory: collecting facts through hard work does not, by itself, create copyright protection. The decision is available through the U.S. Reports.
Feist established that a compilation must meet the constitutional requirement of originality. In this context, originality means independent creation and a minimal amount of creativity—not novelty or artistic merit. The threshold is low, but it is real. A routine or inevitable arrangement may fail it.
What Parts of a Factual Work May Be Protected?
A factual compilation can contain both protected and unprotected material. Copyright may cover original selection, coordination, or arrangement, while leaving the underlying facts free for others to use. It may also protect original writing, illustrations, maps, or photographs included in the work, subject to the rights in each component.
| Element | Typical copyright treatment | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Underlying facts | Not protected by copyright | A restaurant’s address or a historical date |
| Original selection | May be protected if sufficiently creative | A thoughtfully curated set of records chosen under distinctive criteria |
| Arrangement or organization | May be protected if it reflects creative choices | An original grouping of entries, rather than a routine alphabetical list |
| Original prose or images | May be protected separately | Descriptions, photographs, or explanatory text |
Protection is limited to the original contribution. A person who copies a collection’s creative structure may raise a copyright issue even if every fact is public. Conversely, someone who extracts facts and presents them in an independently created format generally does not infringe the compilation copyright merely by using those facts.
How Much Originality Is Enough?
Courts assess the actual choices made by the compiler. A collection may be more likely to qualify when its creator selects entries using distinctive editorial criteria, creates non-obvious categories, or arranges information in a creative way. The precise result depends on the work and the jurisdiction’s application of federal copyright law.
Routine choices often do not qualify. Alphabetizing names, listing every item in a category, organizing entries by a standard classification, or following an obvious chronological sequence may involve little or no protectable creativity. A compiler’s time, expense, expertise, or accuracy can make a work valuable without satisfying copyright’s originality requirement.
Completeness is not automatically original either. A complete list may reflect extensive work, but the fact that the compiler gathered all available entries does not alone establish protectable selection. A court may still find an original arrangement or other expressive contribution in a particular case, so the analysis should focus on the work’s specific design.
Thin Copyright and the Limits on Copying
When a factual compilation has only a small amount of original expression, its copyright is often described as “thin.” That means protection reaches only the author’s original choices, not the facts or standard ways of presenting them. A later work that copies the same facts but uses a different selection or arrangement may not infringe.
For infringement, a claimant generally must show ownership of a valid copyright and copying of protected expression. Similarity in facts alone is not enough. If the allegedly copied elements are unprotectable, the claim may fail unless the defendant also copied a protectable selection, arrangement, or other original content.
Some factual works present hard boundary questions. If there are only a few practical ways to express or organize information, copyright may not give the author control over those limited options. Courts may also disregard standard features that are customary or necessary to the subject. These principles help keep copyright from restricting use of facts through control over their ordinary presentation.
Practical Examples
Business and contact directories
A basic list of businesses, addresses, and phone numbers arranged alphabetically is unlikely to receive much, if any, protection in that arrangement. A directory with original editorial selection, descriptions, or unusual organization may have protectable elements. The underlying business facts remain available for independent use.
News and historical research
Dates, public events, election results, and documented quotations are facts or source material that other writers may report. An article’s original language, analysis, and photographs may be protected. Reusing verified information in newly written reporting is different from copying the article’s expressive wording.
Product and price databases
Product names, specifications, and prices are generally factual. A database may nevertheless contain original descriptions or a creative selection and arrangement. A company should assess those elements separately rather than assuming that every record is protected because the database took time or money to build.
Scientific and research datasets
Measurements and observations are generally facts, while accompanying explanations, graphics, or original database structure may qualify for protection. Researchers should also check license terms, privacy rules, confidentiality duties, and research agreements, which can apply independently of copyright.
Government Data and Public Records
Under 17 U.S.C. § 105, copyright protection is generally unavailable for works of the U.S. federal government prepared by federal employees as part of their official duties. That rule does not automatically apply to works created by state or local governments, contractors, or private organizations. Separate copyright rules and agreements may matter.
Public access is also not the same as public-domain status. A record may be available through a government website or public-records process while containing material created by a private party. Before reproducing a document, photograph, or database, users should check its source, any stated license, and any applicable rights notices.
Copyright Is Not the Only Legal Issue
Even when facts are not protected by copyright, other rules may affect how a person can obtain or use them. A website’s terms of service or a data-sharing contract may create obligations for parties who agree to them. Trade secret law can apply to confidential information, and privacy or consumer-protection laws may restrict certain data practices.
Technical access controls, trespass theories, and state laws can also raise questions depending on the circumstances. These rules are distinct from copyright and do not make factual information copyrightable. A legal review should identify the specific restriction rather than treating copyright as a catch-all explanation.
How to Evaluate a Factual Compilation
- Separate facts from expression. Identify the raw data, original writing, images, and organizational features.
- Look for creative choices. Ask whether selection, grouping, or arrangement is more than routine or dictated by standard practice.
- Determine what was actually copied. Copying facts is different from copying original text, images, or a protectable structure.
- Check rights and terms separately. Review licenses, contracts, privacy obligations, and the source of the material.
- Document independent work. For a new collection, record how its data was sourced and how its selection and organization were developed.
These steps offer a practical starting point, not a substitute for legal advice. Copyright outcomes can depend on the exact compilation, the material taken, and the applicable agreements or laws.
Key Takeaway
Facts are not copyrightable in the United States, but an original factual compilation may receive limited protection for its selection, coordination, or arrangement. The compiler’s effort alone is not enough, and protection does not extend to the underlying facts. This distinction, confirmed by Feist, allows factual information to circulate while preserving copyright in genuine creative contributions.