nated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Feist instructs that, where a copyright is sought in a compilation, “the principal focus should be on whether the selection, coordination, and arrangement are sufficiently original to merit protection.” 499 U.S. at 358, 111 S.Ct. 1282.
Darden’s revised application indicated that he was claiming protection in the website’s “text; map designs and formats; compilation, formatting, and arrangement of text, maps graphics, and listing data.” J.A. 108. In rejecting Darden’s claim, the Copyright Office noted that a website may well contain copyrightable elements, but its formatting and layout is not registrable. Compilation authorship is limited to the original selection, coordination and arrangement of the elements or data contained within a work. See Satava, 323 F.3d at 812.
We conclude that the Copyright Office acted well within its discretion in concluding that Darden failed to present a copyrightable compilation.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Copyright Office did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Darden’s application for registration of his Maps and APPRAISERSdotCOM works. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court granting the Register’s motion for summary judgment and denying Darden’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Paul Dameron MIDGETT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-5263.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued: March 15, 2007.
Decided: May 24, 2007.
