|
KaVir:
When I say "Some short combinations of words can cause infringement of a copyright" you say "Phrases, blah, blah, cannot be protected by copyright".
That's a straw man- answering a different issue than was raised. If you want to be picky and say that a phrase itself can't be copyrighted, in the face of the precedents you've been handed you simply have to admit that a phrase used in a particular context can still be the instrument of an infringement. In fact, you have repeatedly agreed that characters, stories, key themes, etc. can be protected but have steadfastly avoided admitting the validity or applicability of any of the supplied contexts in which that has demonstrably happened.
This makes your first post either spurious (addressing nothing, because the literal words themselves did not constitute the strong part of the case against the ad) or wrong (inappropriate proof).
We've been through this already a few threads ago. I don't even think you have a clue where the term comes from without googling it up. You evidently think it has something to do with caricature or exageration. It doesn't. I'll give you a hint: rather than fighting the real opponent, it's setting up a dummy (straw man) and cutting it apart (with a sword, back when they used straw dummies).
I have repeatedly explained the terminology shift. Amusing- I was attempting to avoid difficulties by transitioning from the concise ("that might be protected") to your preferred circumlocution ("that phrase might bring to mind blah, blah, to such degree as to conjure the theme of, blah, blah..").
Stilton
|