Re: Aphorisms and Copyright

On August 14, 1998, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> Obviously, these are bare conclusions with no analysis as to the
> threshold question of copyrightability, but what the hell is a heat
> transfer, and why would defendant use those kinds of sayings on such a
> product?
>
> And what do people think of the copyrightability of these sayings? Is
> there any reason to suppose that Judge Byrne was correct in his finding
> of infringement? Does it matter that these sayings were copyrighted
> under the 1909 Act?

A heat transfer is a kind of decal used to transfer designs and phrases from heat-sensitive paper onto t-shirts. So, yes, the defendant would certainly have been likely to want to do such a thing.

I wish there had been more analysis in the order. The judge was clearly in a tough spot, forced either to acknowledge the validity of Brilliant's copyright in these short sayings, or to tell Brilliant, in effect, that every time he wrote one of these sayings for his syndicated newspaper feature, it was fair game for anyone to exploit without a license. It's a good example of hard cases making bad law.

Bob Cumbow
Perkins Coie LLP
cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com
206-583-8566 Received on Mon Aug 17 1998 - 21:11:10 GMT