|
To summarise, with key quotes from our discussion so far...
Me: Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases.
Mason: Not entirely true.
Me: I believe you are thinking of trademarks.
Stilton: No, he's correct.
Me: Copyright law does not protect names or phrases.
Mason: Trademark status does offer protection for names such as Star Wars and Luke Skywalker. However, both names are also protected by copyright.
Me: No, they are not...it's not the usage of the name, it's the usage of the creative work behind it.
Me: I never claimed that a character couldn't be protected by copyright law (because quite obviously it can). What I said is that a name cannot be protected. And it cannot.
Stilton: Mason's cites to the contrary?
Me: Once again I reiterate, the names do not receive copyright protection. Ever. It is the characters that receive such protection.
Stilton: For a recent demonstration of short phrase protection (if you trust the 9th Circuit in the US) see...
Me: ...your example...deals with a case whereby the infringer copied key parts of the copyrighted work (ie creative concepts, in the same way as a character from a novel can be copyrighted beyond the actual words that describe him or her).
Stilton: One case is all I need to disprove your claim that short sequences of words cannot be protected by copyright.
Me: 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.
Stilton: To address the quibble about whether it's the phrase or the expression of the concept behind it that's protected: you could reword that to read "a very short phrase is capable of causing infringement."
Me: The statement I originally made was that copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. Right from the very beginning I made it clear that it wasn't the usage of a name (such as Spock or Kirk) that was the copyright violation, but the usage of the creative work behind it.
Stilton: But, what's relevant here is that a particular use of a phrase in a particular context can CAUSE copyright to be infringed (if it sufficiently invokes, by its mere mention, a character, story, etc that IS protected).
Me: A name or phrase does not receive copyright protection. The meaning conveyed by a name or phrase is what may fall under copyright protection, as in the case of certain characters.
So just to clarify, are you saying that you do now actually agree with what I've been saying right from the start - that names and short phrases are not protected by copyright, but instead it is the meaning (or creative work) behind them?
Curious, as I've been arguing the same point throughout the entire thread, and yet now you seem to be claiming that I have changed my viewpoint - when in fact all you've done is gradually shift your own wording until it came in line with mine.
No, you have attempted to back up your argument by presenting one example which backs up part of my earlier posts (about copyright being able to extend beyond the literal words themselves to the creative work behind them), and using it to attack the other half of what I said (that copyright does extend to the names or short phrases themselves), while conveniently ignoring the fact that I said the first part. I'm sure there's a name for that type of fallacy, but I can't be bothered to look it up right now.
It's an "opinion" based on legal wording and precedent.
|