|
As I've already explained, the case in question deals with a concept (in much the same way as a character in a novel can be protected by copyright law) rather than just the phrase itself. Indeed your link specifically mentions that it was "Cook's complete expressions in conveying the meaning of "meter drop" and "rolling stock"" which were deemed creative and thus protected by copyright, and that "Where the copied protected portions are only a small part of the larger work, as is the case here, that material must be qualitatively important to either plaintiff's or defendant's work".
It was the meaning behind them that was copyrighted. If I had written a short story about "rolling stocks" which referred to the frame holding a ship which had rolled down a hill, it would obviously not have been an infringement - any more than writing a story about Spock the duck who was living on a farm. In that respect, it is no different to the example you attempted to use previously of a character name falling under copyright. In both cases it was not the name of the character/concept, but the creativity behind it, that falls under copyright protection.
I disagree. It was just one sentence within the work, and was hardly qualitatively important to the work.
Did you verify this with the mud owner, or did you just assume it?
Yes - solidly in the area of having nothing to do with the name itself, but with the creative work behind it.
|