Copyright and "Who is John Galt?"

[brian0918]

If I search on CafePress, I find dozens of "Who is John Galt?" bumper stickers. How does copyright work with these? Is it a sufficiently short sentence that copyright doesn't apply? Does the fact that they're being sold, rather than given away, change the determination?

And, to stay on topic for the forum... should copyright apply to such short phrases?

[anonrobt]

If I search on CafePress, I find dozens of "Who is John Galt?" bumper stickers. How does copyright work with these? Is it a sufficiently short sentence that copyright doesn't apply? Does the fact that they're being sold, rather than given away, change the determination?

And, to stay on topic for the forum... should copyright apply to such short phrases?

"Who is John Galt" , whether liked or not, has passed into the 'common vernacular' some forty years or so ago... like the smilies...

Edited April 6, 2009 by anonrobt

[DavidOdden]

A proper concept of copyright would allow such short quotations for purposes of commentary and discussion. We quote Rand's writing here all the time, precisely so that we can understand and argue based on her works. However, that does not extend to commercial exploitation of the kind you describe. The point of having copyright law is that the copyright owner -- and not some pirate -- should reap the economic benefits of the work. As a minor but necessary aspect of an independent work (for example, as a small part of a book criticizing Rand's philosophy) which is sold for profit, the profit derives from the independent critique, not from the handful of quotes in the book.

"Fair use" is pretty subjective hocus-pocus, but I bet The Estate could get damages (if it isn't licensed -- we have no idea), because this would be well beyond "fair use".

[brian0918]

David: I agree regarding fair use... so if I printed up my own WIJG bumper stickers, and even handed them out to friends, that would be alright, but if I tried to sell them, it wouldn't be. And if I tried to buy them, I would be promoting the violation of copyright (not necessarily illegal, but immoral).

Do you find anything wrong with these statements?

Edited April 6, 2009 by brian0918

[Jake_Ellison]

Here's a short phrase: NY Yankees. Try printing and selling t-shirts with that on.

It absolutely a copyright violation, and if they were big enough, Dr. Peikoff would have no problem suing and winning over that.

[Tordmor]

David: I agree regarding fair use... so if I printed up my own WIJG bumper stickers, and even handed them out to friends, that would be alright, but if I tried to sell them, it wouldn't be. And if I tried to buy them, I would be promoting the violation of copyright (not necessarily illegal, but immoral).

Do you find anything wrong with these statements?

I do. If you print out that sticker and display it you are getting a benefit out of A.R.'s work without having paid for it. I think, whether that benefit is monetary or non-monetary is a minor difference.

However, the sentence WIJG "has passed into the 'common vernacular'" as anonrobt put it because it hasn't been protected. If a copyright holder allows his work to be used freely for several decades he can not later come and stop it. He has by not protecting his copyright abandoned his property claims.

Here's a short phrase: NY Yankees. Try printing and selling t-shirts with that on.

It absolutely a copyright violation, and if they were big enough, Dr. Peikoff would have no problem suing and winning over that.

That's probably a trademark. That's different.

[DavidOdden]

so if I printed up my own WIJG bumper stickers, and even handed them out to friends, that would be alright, but if I tried to sell them, it wouldn't be

The proper distinction is not based on "for monetary gain" -- this is a common myth among copyright infringers. I see I misled you by speaking of economic benefits, which was not intended to imply exclusivity. The copyright owner has all rights to control copying, but that does not extend to prohibition of discussion / comment which includes small and necessary quotation.

[brian0918]

The proper distinction is not based on "for monetary gain" -- this is a common myth among copyright infringers. I see I misled you by speaking of economic benefits, which was not intended to imply exclusivity. The copyright owner has all rights to control copying, but that does not extend to prohibition of discussion / comment which includes small and necessary quotation.

So even printing them out for myself would be prohibited, then?

[brian0918]

How about "Atlas Will Shrug" or "Going Galt" (or something like that)? Where does it become detached enough from the original work to become alright?

[DavidOdden]

How about "Atlas Will Shrug" or "Going Galt" (or something like that)? Where does it become detached enough from the original work to become alright?

In the context of the facts of that novel, being what it is, the second phrase is clearly not infringement and I can't imagine a case being made that for former is either. I'd be interested to see what percentage of the population would recognize "Atlas Will Shrug" as an allusion to Rand's novel -- I would hope the number is very high.

[brian0918]

In the context of the facts of that novel, being what it is, the second phrase is clearly not infringement and I can't imagine a case being made that for former is either. I'd be interested to see what percentage of the population would recognize "Atlas Will Shrug" as an allusion to Rand's novel -- I would hope the number is very high.

At the tea parties it seemed high - people were coming up to us constantly thanks to the signs.