Copyrighting Gibberish

On 27, August 1998, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/24/98, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > To be clear, though, although the Copyright Office regulation is
> > > worded so that it looks like the Office is making a statement
> > > about what qualifies for copyright subject matter, in fact, the
> > > Office has no jurisdiction to issue regulations that delineate
> > > the scope of copyright subject matter. 202.1 regulates what is
> > > registerable, not what is copyrightable.
> >
> > How come? Not saying you're wrong, just how did you get there?
>
> It starts with the fact that copyright subsists without any
> requirement to regisr the copyright or have any other involvement
> with the Copyright Office. The Office does not provide any
> substantive right; it's an adminstrative office of record.
>
> The requirements for copyright are set out in the statute, with no
> provision for the Office to alter them. In contrast to, say, the
> Patent Act, which has a lot of detail about the role of the PTO in
> determining the patentability of a particular invention, the statutory
> role of the CO is pretty narrow. They're "administrative functions
> and duties" under Title 17 (s. 701(a)). The CO is required to
> register the work after it determines it's subject to copyright
> (s. 410(a))-- not make a decision about what that subject is; if an
> applicant is refused registration, he's not refused copyright -- he can
> go ahead and sue under the copyright without the prima facie evidentiary
> benefits of the registration (s. 411(a)). He's still even eligible
> for statutory damages and attorneys' fees, since 410(d) makes the
> registration date retroactive to the date of receipt of materials by
> the CO if registration is denied but a court subsequently finds them
> to be subject to copyright.
>
> The Copyright Office is primarily an office of record, not an office
> that grants rights.

Is it possible to exclude gibberish from copyright protection? Does the material have to make sense?

For example,

1. A 100-page list of prime numbers (not a computer program, just a list of numbers)
2. A 300-page random string of words in no particular order taken from the dictionary or newspaper

Would these qualify as copyrightable materials?

Michael A Scarpitti
Assistant Editor
Materials Evaluation
1711 Arlingate Lane
PO Box 28518
Columbus, Ohio 43228-0518
800 222-2768 Ext 207
614 274-6003 Ext 207
Fax 614 274-6899
<mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> Received on Fri Aug 28 1998 - 13:24:51 GMT