Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Stilton · 07-30-2003, 12:56 PM

Welcor:
de minimis is tricky, and something that reasonable people may disagree on.

If it's not de minimis, then it has to fall into one of the categories of fair use. Which one do you believe is applicable (or more than one)?

Please note that there are also cases where small quantities have been found to be infringing (300 words/200,000 in one example findable through my other links)

Context is strongly dependent here: History or a technical manual explaining a process can be very close without infringing. Creative works sometimes have wider scope (there are only so many ways to say "General Washington crossed the Delaware" or "Tighten the engine bolts in counterclockwise order" while there are many more possibilities for interactions of characters in a novel).

KaVir:
Whatever the reason, certain uses of certain short sequences of words (possibly even a single word in the case of a character name in certain contexts) may not be allowed in certain contexts.

This seems to be directly contrary to your (initial? continued?) position that the phrase in the ad cannot be infringing simply because of its short length. If the phrase sufficiently invokes the protected character/expression of an idea/whatever, it can't be used in certain ways.

As you said earlier, you may be able to write a children's story about a cat and dog named Spock and Kirk. But try to market a pet food with a starry background, a space ship, and the phrase "Spock and Kirk's favorite" pictured on the front and you might find yourself in lawsuit territory.

Practically speaking, precisely what is protected in the above description is not important to our present debate: whether the use of a certain distinctive phrase can infringe someone's copyright.

The answer, which you seem to be agreeing with (while emphasizing that it's not "just" the phrase that's protected), is yes.

Which is the same misdirection as before. You started out saying that this particular use of that phrase in that ad could not possibly infringe on a copyright BECAUSE IT WAS SHORT.

Now you're saying that a phrase can't be protected in and of itself as a sequence of words, but only as a result of the meaning it conveys in a context. This is true, but irrelevant to the issue we're debating: whether any particular use of a short phrase is capable of infringing copyright.

Clearly, it is possible for a short sequence of words to cause a copyright infringement in the general case. This ad? I happen to think so, you and Welcor don't.

I read the owner's posts* in this thread. He said that it was a parody. Thus, he clearly intended that the phrase's origin be recognized. I don't happen to agree that it's a parody, but the fact that he claimed it was provides evidence that the use was intentionally invoking Tolkien's IP in the minds of the audience.

Stilton

*Ok, Ok, someone CLAIMING to be in a position to represent the intent of the ad. I'm inclined to think that he's genuine lacking evidence ot the contrary.

07-30-2003, 12:56 PM	#45
Stilton Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 100	Welcor: de minimis is tricky, and something that reasonable people may disagree on. If it's not de minimis, then it has to fall into one of the categories of fair use. Which one do you believe is applicable (or more than one)? Please note that there are also cases where small quantities have been found to be infringing (300 words/200,000 in one example findable through my other links) Context is strongly dependent here: History or a technical manual explaining a process can be very close without infringing. Creative works sometimes have wider scope (there are only so many ways to say "General Washington crossed the Delaware" or "Tighten the engine bolts in counterclockwise order" while there are many more possibilities for interactions of characters in a novel). KaVir: Whatever the reason, certain uses of certain short sequences of words (possibly even a single word in the case of a character name in certain contexts) may not be allowed in certain contexts. This seems to be directly contrary to your (initial? continued?) position that the phrase in the ad cannot be infringing simply because of its short length. If the phrase sufficiently invokes the protected character/expression of an idea/whatever, it can't be used in certain ways. As you said earlier, you may be able to write a children's story about a cat and dog named Spock and Kirk. But try to market a pet food with a starry background, a space ship, and the phrase "Spock and Kirk's favorite" pictured on the front and you might find yourself in lawsuit territory. Practically speaking, precisely what is protected in the above description is not important to our present debate: whether the use of a certain distinctive phrase can infringe someone's copyright. The answer, which you seem to be agreeing with (while emphasizing that it's not "just" the phrase that's protected), is yes. Which is the same misdirection as before. You started out saying that this particular use of that phrase in that ad could not possibly infringe on a copyright BECAUSE IT WAS SHORT. Now you're saying that a phrase can't be protected in and of itself as a sequence of words, but only as a result of the meaning it conveys in a context. This is true, but irrelevant to the issue we're debating: whether any particular use of a short phrase is capable of infringing copyright. Clearly, it is possible for a short sequence of words to cause a copyright infringement in the general case. This ad? I happen to think so, you and Welcor don't. I read the owner's posts* in this thread. He said that it was a parody. Thus, he clearly intended that the phrase's origin be recognized. I don't happen to agree that it's a parody, but the fact that he claimed it was provides evidence that the use was intentionally invoking Tolkien's IP in the minds of the audience. Stilton *Ok, Ok, someone CLAIMING to be in a position to represent the intent of the ad. I'm inclined to think that he's genuine lacking evidence ot the contrary.