|
KaVir:
One case is all I need to disprove your claim that short sequences of words cannot be protected by copyright.
As soon as you say (if you do), "Well, maybe SOME phrases or names are so distinctive that they can be protected when used in certain ways," you're agreeing with me and recanting your continued assertions that brief sequences of words cannot ever be so protected.
It wasn't the concepts (ie, ideas, as your own cites also make clear)- it was the way of expressing them that was held to be protected. Particularly, as little as two words: "meter drop."
I disagree- what was used is one of the most distinct and recognizable pieces of the work. Further, it was specifically chosen BECAUSE it is so greatly identified with Tolkien in the minds of the intended audience. This is solidly in the territory Mason and I covered with our earlier cites.
If you want to say, "Well, I don't think that this particular use infringes," then we'll have to (hopefully amicably) disagree. If you continue to say that such short excerpts can NEVER have any protection merely because they're short, I will continue to contend that you are wrong.
specifically
and
The courts you cite did not say that NO excerpt of that that length can be protected by copyright, only that these two examples were not in this particular context protected by copyright.
This is not evidence that very brief sequences of words are never protected by copyright, only evidence that not EVERY brief sequence of words can be protected by copyright. I have not made any claim that these cases disprove.
Stilton
|