Can You Copyright A Single Word?
from the hopefully-not dept
Glyn Moody points us to an interesting copyright ruling in Poland, where a company tried to claim that it could not just trademark a made up word, Jogi (referring to yogurt), but also that it could copyright the word. Apparently there was some confusion about the ruling, because the Polish Supreme Court (before issuing the full ruling) suggested that you could copyright a single word -- but the full decision indicated that this would only be possible in truly exceptional situations:The Supreme Court stated that although newly coined words or names could theoretically be protected by copyright, this was only exceptionally possible, i.e. when a word in question possessed an extraordinary degree of originality. Quite forcefully the court observed that the belief every subjectively new creation of the human mind was a copyright work had no legal foundation and could even lead to the deprecation on the notion of "creativity". Although the decision explicitly confirms that works created solely for utilitarian purposes (including industrial products) may be protected by copyright (but this has not been seriously questioned for a long time now), it also takes the view that the purpose of a work can not in itself be sufficient to ensure copyright protection. In other words, the Supreme Court rejects the idea that the element of creativity can be discerned in the particular way the work is used. Consequently, in the case at hand the fact that the plaintiff "created" the connection between the word (trademark) and a certain category of goods is not enough – the word as such must be autonomously individual and should be capable of being used on various fields of exploitation. The Court correctly observed that the plaintiff essentially wanted to protect the idea of using a certain word in a certain context, whereas ideas are outside the scope of copyright protection.While this ruling appears to have gotten it right, the attempt to copyright a single word (over which a trademark was already held) shows the constant efforts by those with government granted monopoly privileges to try to expand those rights. It's an unfortunate symptom of copyright maximalists continually pushing the myth of copyright as "property," that people naturally seek to expand their "property" rights well beyond what the law is designed to allow.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Flarglesnout!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flarglesnout!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright 2011 unanimous Cow Herd
Please copy and distribute this freely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Google" has connected a companies name to internet searches in a permanent way. "Muggle" has enshrined Harry Potter into the English language. "Kleenex" is used as widely as "tissue", even when it's not accurate.
Then again, it's not like shortsightedness is uncommon when it comes to IP law...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 13th, 2011 @ 12:42am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
§ 202.1 Material not subject to copyright.
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 . . . .
http://www.copyright.gov/title37/202/37cfr202-1.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) The case was in Poland not the US but no doubt US IP maximalists will soon be calling for the US to "harmonize" with Poland.
2) Since when has the letter of the law stopped a rightsholder from bringing a case when they thought that they were "entitled" to something.
3) Since when has the letter of the law stopped a judge from ruling the way he/she "felt" was right.
I sincerely hope that the letter of the law you quoted remains and is observed - but then again the letter of the law used to say that copyright only lasted 14 years and required registration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, I find it interesting how some waffle between implicit and explicit depending upon their specific needs at that time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks.
I didn't say it did. Don't be silly.
You know, you wrote an article called: "Can You Copyright A Single Word?" I guess I was wrong to think you'd appreciate my input as to what the law is in the country you live in. My bad. Clearly you are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This article is helpful on the matter: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/commentary_and_analysis/2003_09_stim.html
Also, there are cases going both ways as to whether product codes can be protected by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't really think it should be, just putting it out here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only a copyright troll would want a brand name copyrighted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrighting single words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copywritting words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]