On 8/25/98, Howard G. Zaharoff <hgz[_at_]buslaw128.com> wrote:
>
> To my knowledge there are no cases identifying any minimum number of
> words needed for copyrightability. It's likely that in any given case
> the answer will rest more on originality than numbers. For example,
> in Perma Greetings v. Russ Berrie, 598 F. Supp. 445 (1984), the U.S.
> district court for E.D. Missouri held that such cliched phrases as
> "Along the way take time to smell the flowers" are not protected by
> copyright.
The court in Perma noted that short phrases are not normally copyrightable:
"Examples of works not subject to copyright include the following: words and short phrases such as names, titles, slogans."
And then a little further on:
"Two of the products use the same phrase. Exhibit 10 shows use of the phrase "Hang in there." Exhibit 16 uses the phrase "Along the way take time to smell the flowers." Defendant's separate exhibit 18 shows its use of the stereotypic phrase "hang in there" as early as 1979, before plaintiff's use. Further, such phrases are unprotected. Other exhibits show parallels in the use of the same words but in varied phrases, such as "enjoy" versus "I'd enjoy the day more;" "Mug me" versus "I love my mug;" and "A friend is someone special" versus "good friends are hard to find." The ideas of enjoyment, a drinking mug, friendship, sunshine, flowers, are all unprotected by copyright. Defendant's use thereof does not violate plaintiff's copyrights."
So, it's true that the court uses the word "stereotypic," clearly implying the phrases aren't very original. But it also seems to keep ringing the bell that "phrases are unprotected."
> In Narell v. Freeman, 872 F.2d 907, 912 (1989) the Ninth Circuit stated
> that the first two lines of Longfellow's "Paul Revere's Ride" ("Listen,
> my children, and you shall hear Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere..")
True. Dicta but true. 14 words, if anyone is counting. I might also add that, although still a short phrase, it is hardly an aphorism or a slogan. It even rhymes.
> In short, even short phrases may be protectible by copyright if they
> evidence a modicum of creativity and aren't stock or commonplace.
Ha. You even prefaced that by "in short." I would say that there might be a continuum here. The longer the phrase, the less creativity required; the shorter, the more. I'll create a graph. :-)
(BTW, thanks for all the nice cites. Very helpful.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:31 GMT