Re: Aphorisms and Copyright

From: Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:11:30 -0700

On 8/24/98, Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
>
> 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."

I sure wouldn't like to conclude that based on these two cases. There is no analysis in Brilliant, and the analysis in Foxworthy does not reach the issue.

---

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

---

Received on Thu Aug 27 1998 - 04:09:55 GMT