Welcor:
Yes, the use was infringing because of its specific circumstances.

Ah, but I wasn't: I was using it to prove that KaVir's initial claim that short uses get an unconditional 'free pass' on infringement is false. This particular use may or may not be ok, but KaVir's supporting argument was incorrect. A very short phrase is capable of infringing.*

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." This is an angels-on-the-head-of-pin argument, though: If by using a phrase one can infringe a copyright, the terminology describing the infringement is a matter for lawyers, not us.

The statement I originally made was that copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases.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. Your more recent link is exactly the same situation again, except referring to a short phrase rather than a name, and actually backs up my earlier posts about copyright extending to the creative concepts behind the actual words themselves.

My argument has remained consistent throughout this thread, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop attacking straw men.

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

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 (eg Kirk, Spock, Gandalf, etc) or phrases (rolling stock), which clearly refer to the original work, and are thus a form of derivative work.

The advert given here is/was a completely different issue to the one that you and Mason have been arguing. The phrase mentioned by the original post was simply that - a few words. They did not represent some creative character or concept, and thus would very clearly be considered "de minimis".

KaVir:
Uh, yes.  We do not disagree in substance here.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

The issue I have been arguing is that your use of that FAQ answer as proof that this ad cannot possibly infringe BECAUSE_THE_AD_ONLY_USES_A_BRIEF_PHRASE is bogus.

I have backed up my argument by presenting instances in which certain uses of certain brief phrases have been found sufficient to create an infringement .  This is sufficient to invalidate your reasoning.  Arguing your conclusions or the FAQ statement back at me doesn't make your reasoning valid.

QED.

That's an opinion, not a fact.  It would be very presumptuous of either of us to attempt to make a de minimus ruling one way or ther other.  Stating an opinion is fine, and I have endeavored to label mine as such.

Stilton

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.

KaVir:
That final exchange is a good summary of how this has gone:
Stilton: "Particular uses of particular phrases can generate infringement"
KaVir: "A name or phrase does not receive copyright protection. The meaning conveyed..."

You're dodging the issue. Big'ol straw man. What the heck else could I have meant but usages which invoke particular, protected meanings?

Haven't checked the rest of the quotes in detail for accuracy, but sounds about right.

Don't build a war over whether the proper way to describe a situation like the one we're discussing is "This phrase is protected" or "This particular use of that phrase generates an infringement because it invokes a character, story, etc. sufficiently to ..."

Over the course of the thread, I have switched to the latter phrasing to be consistent with you, rather than argue about it as you attempt to do above.

Rather than quibble over terms, I have started to bring my usages closer to yours. Where do I claim that your viewpoint has changed? (I did ask for and get clarification to make sure I understood it)

The point you have been arguing over the whole thread seems to me to be the same, too: _A_, because _B_.

_A_ may or may not be true (opinion question). _B_ is either irrelevant or untrue depending on whether you use the FAQ's language or yours, respectively ("isn't protected in and of itself" vs "cannot make a given use of material infringing by invoking context and meaning". Your very first post doesn't make any sense with the first usage- it wouldn't demonstrate anything about the present situation, so why would you have posted it? The second usage I have proved to be untrue, ie that a short phrase is capable of generating an infringement.

_A_ BECAUSE _B_ is thus proven to be high-grade organic fertilizer.

It's not a fallacy. If you say _A_ because _B_, and I can demonstrate that _B_ isn't applicable or isn't correct, I've demonstrated that your proof is invalid. I recognize quite well, and have never made a claim to the contrary, that what I have done is not sufficient to prove much about the proposition _A_ itself.


Stilton

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.

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

If you're going to use quotes, please use things that were actually said, so that they can be viewed in context.

Except that it's your answers to my issues which are the straw man arguments. I made a statement (that names and short phrases are not protected by copyright), which you then repeatedly attempted to dispute by responding to something different. If you cannot answer my points, then don't answer them - because if you attempt to answer something different I will simply assume that you didn't read it properly and stress the point again until you do address it.

I had hoped you'd have learned this the last time that I had to explain to you what a straw man argument is, and why I refuse to be drawn in by people who try to use them on me.

The statement you mention above:  I have responded to it repeatedly.

Once again:  The statement you refer to is pretty much true, but beside the point. You raising it again and again is the straw man I'm talking about- I have never claimed that Tolkien has a copyright on the phrase "That would be folly". Disproving a claim that I have never made (but sounds close to one that I have, straw man) doesn't buttress your position.

Tolkien has rights to story/theme/etc. which has been deliberately invoked by the guy who placed the ad (Kylotan).  Maybe it's improper use, maybe it isn't, but your refrain about copyright not protecting phrases etc utterly fails to address the claim you continue to present it in response to.

The fact that copyright does not protect short phrases in and of themselves does not imply that short phrases are always legally incapable of creating an infringement by conjuring up material which IS protected.  Several precedents reviewed here demonstrate that fact.

Your first post, and subsequent posts, have failed in their stated goal of proving that there is no improper infringement based purely upon the length of the material quoted.

Stilton

No, it's 7 pages of people arguing legal issues, on a legal forum. That's not really any different from people arguing building issues on the builders forum, or coding issues on the coding forum. If you don't want to read about legal issues, then I have to wonder what you're doing reading the "Legal Issues" forum.

However I think the discussion has gone about as far as it can, at least as far as I'm concerned - I don't feel I've anything to add that I haven't already said.