|
I'm dodging nothing. Names and short phrases are not protected by copyright, no matter how much you try to wriggle the wording around. It is the meanings conveyed by some names and phrases that can be protected by copyright, and the example that started this thread is quite clearly not one of them - it is simply a statement, and does not represent any further creative meaning beyond its own words.
And please learn what a straw man is before throwing the term around. An example of a straw man would be where I pointed out that names are not protected by copyrighted, to which you responded by attacked the statement that a fictional character could not be copyrighted - a statement I had never made, nor even implied.
Well after reading your various comments:
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: 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?
Stilton: One case is all I need to disprove your claim that short sequences of words cannot be protected by copyright.
It seems fairly clear that you originally believed names and short phrases could not be protected by copyright. It seems apparent that you've now shifted your view to the same as mine, which makes it difficult for me to understand why you're still arguing.
|