|
KaVir:
You joined the thread, apparently saying that the ad couldn't be infringing because it fell into one of four categories (presumably, short phrases):
We argued a bit. Mason stated some things better than I had been doing. You said that you'd been consistent. I then said, because I was becoming unsure of what your real claim was:
You replied:
So, you have agreed that your original post was intended to (using the language you later provided a link to in the FAQ) constitute evidence that this particular use of a short phrase was not infringing because, as the FAQ you cite says, NO short phrase can be copyrighted.
Note that I agree with the portion of your position that says a phrase cannot normally receive a grant of copyright as such.
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).
Your statement was literally correct. Claiming that its truth constitutes conclusive evidence that this particular ad cannot be infringing was/is incorrect.
Stilton
|