Document Type : Research Paper


allame tabatabai university


A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of pre-existing materials or of data that are selected, coordinated or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship, such as periodical issue, anthology, encyclopedia, telephone directory, etc. Since the prerequisite for protection of copyright works is originality, this question arises whether these works are original and may also be copyrightable. The meaning of originality is not defined in the majority of national copyright legislations. Instead, the interpretation of what is to be original has been left mainly to the courts. Courts have different opinions regarding the definition of originality and its conditions. However, the Supreme Court of United States in the Feist case put an end to this division.
This article attempts to study the notion of originality of compilations works by analyzing the Feist case in order to answer whether compilation works have any originality and if the answer is yes, what is its scope.


 الف- فارسی
-         زرکلام، ستار، (1384)، قانون مالکیت فکری فرانسه و آلمان (آثار ادبی و هنری) (ترجمه)، چاپ اول، تهران: سازمان مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی کشور.
-         ________، (1387)، حقوق مالکیت ادبی و هنری، چاپ اول، تهران: سمت.
-         صفایی، سیدحسین، (1375)، مالکیت ادبی و هنری و بررسی قانون حمایت حقوق مؤلفان، مصنفان و هنرمندان، مقالاتی درباره‌ حقوق مدنی و تطبیقی، تهران: میزان.
-         هگل،گئورک ویلهلم فریدریش، (1394)، عناصر فلسفه حق، ترجمه مهبد ایرانی‌طلب، چاپ سوم، تهران:  قطره.
-         زرکلام، ستار، (1386)، »تبیین مفهوم اصالت در حقوق مالکیت ادبی و هنری»، مجله پژوهش حقوق و سیاست، سال نهم، شماره 22.
-         صفایی، سیدحسین، (1381)، «بررسی حقوق مؤلف و نارسایی‌های آن در ایران»؛ مندرج در مجموعه سخنرانی‌ها  و مقالات تخصصی بررسی حقوق نشر کتاب در ایران چالش‌ها و رهیافت‌ها، خانه کتاب.
-         قانون حمایت حقوق مؤلفان، مصنفان و هنرمندان مصوب 1348.
-         لایحه حمایت از مالکیت فکری، کتاب اول: مالکیت ادبی و هنری و حقوق مرتبط
ب- انگلیسی
-          Abramas, Howard, (1992), “Originality and Creativity in Copyright Law”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 55, No. 2.
-          Fenzel, Cristin, )2007(, “Still Life With "Spark" and  "Sweat": The Copyright Ability of Contemporary Art in the United State and United Kingdom”, Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 24.
-          Gervais, Daniel, J, )2002(, “Feist Goes Global: A Comparative Analysis of the Notion of Originality in Copyright Law”, Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A, Vol.49, 949.
-          Hariani, Krishna and Hariani, Anirudh, )2011(, “Analyzing "Originality” in Copyright Law: Transcending Jurisdictional Disparity”, IDEA-The Intellectual Property Law Review, Vol.51, No. 3.
-          Judge, Elizabeth & Gervais, Daniel, (2009-2010), “Of Silos and Constellations: Comparing Notion of Originality in Copyright Law”, Cardozo Arts & Entertainment, Vol. 27, 375.
-          Littrell, Ryan, )2002(, “Toward a Stricter Originality Standard for Copyright Law”, Boston College Law Review, Vol.43, Issue 1, No.1.
-          McDaniel, Katerine L and Juo, James, )2009(, “A Quantum of Originality in Copyright”, Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, Vol.8, No.169.
-          Ros, Vioral & Livadariu, Andreea, )2014(, “Originality-Condition for Protection of Scientific Works”, Challenging of the Knowledge Society.Intellectual Property Law, Nicolae Titulescu University House Romania, Vol 4 (1), 
-          Sotomi, Joseph, (2005), Originality in Copyright: “A contested issue”, Intellectual Property Law, Dissertation LW556, University of Kent England.
- Alfred Bell & Co v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 191 F, 2d 99 (1951).
- Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony 111 U.S.53 (1884).
- Desktop Marketing System Pty ltd; v. Telstra Corp ltd FCAFC 112 (2002).
-          Easten Book Company & Ors v. Navin J Desai & Another (2001) PTC 57 (Del)
-          Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, inc 225 F.3d 1068 (9th cir 2000).
-          Feist publications, Inc v. Rural Telephone Service Co .499 U.S.340 (1991).
-          Key Publication Inc v. Chinatown Today Publishing Enterprise 945 F.2D 509 (1991).
-          Kregos V. Associated Press (2d cir) 731 F.Supp.113 (1991).
-          Richard Satav v. Christopher Lowry 323 F.3d 805 (2003).
-          University of Waikato V. Benchmarking Service ltd NZCA 90  (2004).8NZBLC 101,561 (11 June 2004)
-          U.S Payphone, Inc v. Executive Unlimited of Durham, Inc , 781 F.Supp.412 ( M.D.N.C.1991).
-          Victoria Park Racing and Recreation griund Compary v. Taycor - HCA 45 (1937).
-          Walter v. Lane  AC.539 (1900).