STAY IN THE HIMALAYAN MOUNTAINS
COMPILATIONS AND THE SWEAT OF THE BROW DOCTRINE
§ 103 of the Copyright Act allows for the protection of "compilations," provided there is a "creative" or "original" act involved in such a compilation, such as in the selection and arrangement. The sweat of the brow doctrine and protection is limited only to the selection and arrangement, not to the facts themselves, which may be freely copied. Facts are considered synonymous to "ideas" or "discoveries" under sweat of the brow doctrine and are not copyrightable. A compilation of uncopyrightable facts is also uncopyrightable. Sweat of the brow doctrine is in conflict with the core principle of the Copyright Act. It has led to confusion in order to determine the boundaries of the concept of originality. Historic examples of the sweat of the brow doctrine are: The Supreme Court decision in Feist v. Rural, and International News Service v. Associated Press.
The Supreme Court decision in Feist v. Rural further made clear the requirements that a compilation be original in its composition, in denying protection to telephone "white pages". The Feist court rejected what was known as the sweat of the brow doctrine, in a ruling that no matter how much work was necessary to create a compilation, a non-selective collection of facts ordered in a non-creative way is not subject to copyright protection.
International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918). Hearst chain was unable to report war news because of British and French government prohibition. INS started reading news reports in AP newspapers and telegraphed salient facts to Hearst’s west coast papers.
Though not a patent law concept, the term “sweat of the brow” is also used to explain that the expenditure of technical skill and effort. AP brought suit for copyright infringement. It was held that there was no copyright in the facts of the stories, which had resulted from AP newsgathering efforts.
Sweat of the Brow Doctrine-
Abstract: Sweat Of The Brow Doctrine is one of the well known doctrines in Copyright Law. The doctrine protects factual compilations. The rationale behind this Sweat of the Brow Doctrine was to award the person who expended his sweat and effort in compiling the facts. The principle of Sweat of the brow doctrine can also be stated in the form that one is not at liberty to avail himself of the labour which the other has been at for the purposes of producing his work that is, in fact, merely to take away the result of another mans labour or in other words, his intellectual property.
With the ruling of the Feist Case(1991), this sweat of the brow doctrine was totally negated. U.S. Copyright Act allows for the protection of "compilations," only when there is a "creative" or "original" act involved in such a compilation. The application of Feist case was made in case of directories, catalogues, charts , forms and judicial reports etc.
In India, the lacuna in originality is not defined in the Act. India follows Sweat of the Brow doctrine. In the cases like Eastern Book Company v. D. B. Modak(2002), Indian judiciary showed a shift from the sweat of the brow doctrine. But still in case of database protection, this sweat of the brow doctrine is practiced by the judiciary. The sweat of the brow doctrine should be made void under copyright law, and Copyright Act should protect creativity and originality rather then labour and sweat.