Re: Aphorisms and Copyright

On Mon, August 24, 1998, Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
>
> 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."

[Ignore if this has already been mentioned] ... "The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo" is the classic common law jurisdiction law school example. In that case, the phrase was a title, and was denied protection (it was copied exactly). Such a phrase is denied protection not because it is too short - there is no length requirement per se for copyright in common law jurisdictions (other than possibly US) that I know of - it is denied protection because it is not original. I'm sure that somewhere in history someone said "You know you're a Redneck if...", and thus the phrase should not be afforded copyright protection. Even if it is partly original (the general phrase structure "you know you're ______ if" is clearly not original to Foxworthy, thus the only original part of the phrase is the word Redneck), there are a limited number of ways it could be expressed - thus someone expressing the idea in the same way should not be found to infringe as there is no other way to express the idea. The phrase is a trademark of Foxworthy and should be protected as such.

I am curious as to where this "short phrases" denial of copyright protection comes from. Is it actually in the Copyright Act?

Cappone D'Angelo
<cdangelo[_at_]pivotal.com> Received on Tue Aug 25 1998 - 21:44:30 GMT