Re: Aphorisms and Copyright

From: Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 18:28:49 -0700

On 8/20/98, Howard G. Zaharoff <hgz[_at_]buslaw128.com> wrote:
>
> Although you may be technically correct -- the lack of copyrightable
> subject matter was never raised explicitly by the defense -- the case
> may be more germane than it at first appears. In responding to the
> defense of non-originality, the court writes: "...all of the jokes
> copied by the defendants were not only his own ideas, but his own
> expression. His expression clearly evidenced a 'modicum of intellectual
> labor' [quoting Feist]." Since all the jokes at issue were one-liners,
> it suggests that this court was willing to assume that they contained
> copyrightable subject matter (though I admit the issue wasn't put
> squarely before them).

I don't know what the court was willing to assume. I only know that there was zero analysis on the issue of copyrightable subject matter. The notion that short phrases are not copyrightable is fairly well entrenched in US law. It is articulated in copyright regulation as well. For a court to "assume" something that is contrary to well-accepted copyright principles seems bizarre to me. Of course, it also seems bizarre that the defendant didn't raise the issue.

---

Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
UCLA School of Law '98
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1206/

---

Received on Sat Aug 22 1998 - 01:27:13 GMT