Re: Aphorisms and Copyright

On 8/24/98, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.

I can see no reason under U.S. copyright law or regulations why a collection of original short phrases (one-liners, aphorisms, epigrams or what-have-you) should not be suitable subject matter for copyright, even if any single such phrase, taken alone, would not be.

Daniel J. Schaeffer
<daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com> Received on Mon Aug 24 1998 - 13:05:46 GMT