A chum in Vermont sent me this anonymous quotation: "A cat can do little but a clowder of cats can work great havoc." That sent me running to my dictionary. I have been amused by the great variety of collective nouns in English for a long while, but never before have I heard/read that "clowder" describes a number of cats, house cats, domestic cats. A "kyndyll" or "kindle" of kittens ... yes ... but never a clowder, once they are all grown up.

Curiously enough, while watching a program on TV that used one of these terms, "clowder" was the first that came to mind for me, even ahead of my personal favourite, a lamentation of swans.

don't know why, but I've always liked "murder" of crows.

and would that be: "chum clowder"?

and btw, it wasn't me.

a clowder of cats can work great havoc

All things in moderation
Is a saying of great repute
A cat is a great companion
But a clowder deserves only the boot.

Here's a fun collection of collective nouns: James Lipton's An Exaltation of Larks, paperback ISBN 0140170960. Beware, for some reason (anybody know?), book titles don't carry copyrights, so there are several out there with the same name.

The short answer to why the title of a book may not be protected by copyright is that the law says it may not, or rather, excludes titles from the list of things which are subject to copyright protection.

The longer answer is that it would be altogther silly to allow anyone to copyright the title of a book, in that this would (theoretically) prohibit a cataloguer from listing it, a bibliopole from advertising it, a reviewer from reviewing it, and so on.

Also, I think that pretty soon it would leave authors/publishers with either no choice for a title, or one that was wildly inappropriate.

prohibit a cataloguer from listing it, [...]and so on

I don't follow that, Father - surely all they'd have to do is acknowledge the ®?

I think it's far more likely to be as Jackie suggests: if eligible, all possible permutations would get rapidly swallowed in a feeding frenzy that would make website domain problems seem like a cakewalk!

The short answer to why the title of a book may not be protected by copyright is that the law says it may not

Are you sure about that, Father Steve?

What about a title which consists of, or includes, an original coinage?

No example springs immediately to mind - other than a title, "Exxoneration", which is the only thing memorable about that particular work - but I'm sure others will think of better examples.

Many titles are simply descriptive and, therefore, not distinctive for copyright purposes. Others are drawn from well-known sources (example, a line from Shakespeare) and, therefore, make no pretence to originality.

But, to say an author cannot enjoy copyright in his own original coinage, whether it appears inside a book, or on its cover, is a startling proposition, Father Steve, and it offends my sense of natural justice. [Not to mention my litigious pretensions. I once had a title "Tongue Fu" stolen from me.]

May we have your citation for your legal proposition, Father Steve?

BTW the law allows one to quote from a copyrighted work for cataloguing or review purposes [with restraint and appropriate credit], whether the quote appears inside or on top of a book.

Try 37 CFR 202.1(a)

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.

"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)

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.


It certainly is, but then, I would wish no less from one who is a judge in both the spiritual and temporal worlds.

Parody is delicious

I'm sorry if my misspelling of experiment confused you. I'll go back up and fix it, then you can reread my post. Maybe you'll figure out what I said.

It certainly is, but then, I would wish no less from one who is a judge in both the spiritual and temporal worlds.

Amen. A scholar juridical, canonical and etymological, equally adept in any Order you please.

A man of many cloths.

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

If you write the book, I'll read it. But you may not get it published under that title.

How about Diana of the Hunt in Ancient Rome?
http://www.mythicimages.com/diana.html

Ancient Rome

You right. My bad. She was Artemis in Greece.

A scholar juridical, canonical and etymological, equally adept in any Order you please.

This sounds so very much like a character in a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.

"with a clowder feline-otical"

A scholar juridical, canonical and etymological, equally adept in any Order you please.

This sounds so very much like a character in a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.

Hmm--this could also be made into a double dactyl, don't you think, Anna?

I had a double dactyl once, sitting in a small bar in Nairobi, Kenya. The day was hot and my thirst was Saharan, which overcame my usual good sense. I should have ordered a single, I know, and I've always wondered what happened during the twenty-four hours lost to my memory, immediately following that otherwise-memorable drink.

Father Steve, are you sure you don't have a hidden career, writing PI novels?

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/2003.htm

Thanks for that, padre. I've seen it before and hurt myself laughing at it, but I lost the link. Excimo!

'Theeeey're here!' whispered Billy Joe under his foul breath through yellowed teeth as brilliant white light permeated all of the windows of his trailer, and he flashed back to fragmented recollections of the previous four abductions--the questions, the pain, the probe--which he was powerless to stop but this time was better prepared for, having just finished a seventh bean burrito, a case of Bud, and four packs of Pop Rocks.

That was a great link Father Steve. Merci.

--------

As to copywriting...

I have to admit if I picked up a book called To Kill a Mockingbird and it wasn't about Atticus, Scout or Boo Radly I'd be pretty miffed (unless it was book on the hunt for wild birds)

It just doesn't seem fair.

It just doesn't seem fair.

The science fiction fine-sorter for the Friends of the Library Books Sale every year has to reject several copies of The Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. I've often wondered what would happen if Harlan Ellison ever wrote a book with the same name.