Wordsmith Talk |
About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us | |||
Register Log In Wordsmith.org Forums General Topics Q&A about words Clowder
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Try 37 CFR 202.1(a)
The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:
(a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents;
Thank you, Father Steve. Your scholarship is impressive.
But lawyers have a way around everything.
Note that the same exclusion for "titles" also applies to "slogans" and the world is awash in proprietary slogans which corporations defend oft-times with unseemly zeal.
The latest example is Starbucks' ill-fated foray against "HaidaBucks" which flamed out (quite literally) in the court of public opinion, not in a court of law.
http://www.haidabuckscafe.com
McDonald's, on the other hand, reigns unchallenged over anything beginning with "Mc", and Budweiser squashed "This spud's for you", a pillow designed for 'couch potatoes'.
Likewise, Johnny Carson prevailed over "Here's Johnny", a supplier of portable 'johns'.
Those who invest money in promoting their wares claim trade-mark protection, rather than copyright protection.
One does not have to register a trade-mark to secure this protection, but it is certainly an intelligent thing to do.
If recollection serves, Johnny Carson did not have a registered trade-mark for "Here's Johnny", yet he succeeded in expunging "Here's Johnny" because of its unflattering association with human excrement. [I was always a fan of Johnny, so I believe his umbrage was righteous.]
If one can make a case that the title of a book is an original coinage associated in the public mind with a particular enterprise of commercial value, for example, "Dianetics", then one can scatter literary clowder (aka "copy-cats") to the wind.
Of course, in situations like this, might usually makes right.
But none of this detracts from the quality of your scholarship, Father Steve, only your certitude.
One can have absolute faith in the Word of God. But the word of man, that's another thing altogether.
This is interesting, y'all; more, more!
"Dianetics"
Certainly, one can trademark a word and have certain protections based on that trademark, but if I had written a book called The Dianetics of the Hunt in Ancient Greece prior to Mr Hubbard's little experiment with the gullibility of the human race, I don't see that that title would in any way be copyrightable.
I was always a fan of Johnny, so I believe his umbrage was righteous
There's an implicit minor premise here that I would love to see made explicit. Just to see what it is, mind.
Edit: Thinking about this, I believe it's a major premise that was left out. De maximis non curat vbq?
McDonald's, on the other hand, reigns unchallenged over anything beginning with "Mc"
I seem to remember McDonald's suing a Danish street vendor of hot dogs for using the name Macallans in his business name. He meant it as an homage to his favorite single malt but Mickey D sued and lost as I remember. Anyone know for sure?
There's an implicit minor premise here that I would love to see made explicit.
Some things left implicit
Are better left unsaid
If everything was left explicit
What reason to join this thread?
[or, even, to get out of bed?]
if I had written a book called The Dianetics of the Hunt in Ancient Greece prior to Mr Hubbard's little experimant with the gullibility of the human race
"Experimant"? Did you mean, perhaps, "experirant"?
Macallans ... meant it as an homage to his favorite single malt but Mickey D sued and lost as I remember. Anyone know for sure?
Maybe because Mickey D makes a mush of its own malts.
I seem to remember McDonald's suing a Danish street vendor of hot dogs
Was McDonald's upset about his "Danish", or only about his hot dogs?
if I had written a book called The Dianetics of the Hunt in Ancient Greece, I don't see that that title would be in any way copryrightable
Parody is delicious but, alas, you can't bake a loaf before the yeast has risen. [Yeastways, no-one would eat it.]
P.S. "Here's what the recipes don't tell you: if you don't activate the yeast, you will make a brick."
http://www.stephenwilliamson.com/Hobbies/bakin.htm
"Experimant"? Did you mean, perhaps, "experirant"?
And I thought de minimis non curat vbq.
OP "Names, titles, and short phrases or expressions are not subject to copyright protection. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or if it lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright. The Copyright Office cannot register claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words such as: ... Titles of works ..."
~Circular 34, The US Copyright Office (31 Mar 03)
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Moderated by Jackie
Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics Forums16Topics13,913Posts229,810Members9,187 Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members Karin, JeffMackwood, artguitar, Jim_W, Rdbuffalo
9,187 Registered Users
Who's Online Now 0 members (), 373 guests, and 1 robot. Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days) A C Bowden 15
Top Posters wwh 13,858Faldage 13,803Jackie 11,613wofahulicodoc 10,852tsuwm 10,542LukeJavan8 9,944Buffalo Shrdlu 7,210AnnaStrophic 6,511Wordwind 6,296of troy 5,400
Forum Rules · Mark All Read Contact Us · Forum Help · Wordsmith.org