Re: Aphorisms and Copyright

On Fri, August 21, 1998, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> 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 guess what we can conclude from the Brilliant and Foxworthy cases is that, while titles, short phrases, and slogans are not entitled to copyright protection, evidently witty sayings and jokes ARE so entitled. Or it could be that, if mere length (as suggested by the phrase "short phrases") is the criterion, maybe Brilliant's and Foxworthy's gags were simply long enough to qualify. Does anyone know of a phrase or slogan LONGER than one of Brilliant's aphorisms or Foxworthy's jokes that was denied copyright protection for being too short? If not, then perhaps these cases give us an idea of where courts are willing to draw the line between "short phrases" and "long enough."

Bob Cumbow
Perkins Coie LLP
cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com
206-583-8566 Received on Mon Aug 24 1998 - 15:50:22 GMT