Can You Copyright a Joke? (npr.org)

Reader AnalogDiehard writes: Writer Alex Kaseburg has filed a lawsuit against TBS and Time Warner alleging that jokes recited on the Conan O'Brien show were stolen from his blog shortly after they were published. The case gets heard in August and could create new protections in a legal forum in which there is little precedent or clear definition in what defines a joke as "original" and subject to legal protection, especially in an industry where theft of humor occurs on a regular basis. But the outcome of any judicial decision opens a big can of worms and raises serious questions: Will YouTube videos get shut down from DMCA notices citing copyrighted jokes? Will compliance staff have to be retained to ensure that their magazine or news article, TV show, movie, or broadway act is not infringing on copyrighted jokes? Will copyrights on jokes get near-perpetual protection like the controversial Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act? Will people be able to recite limericks without fear of infringing? Will tyrannical politicians copyright critical jokes to oppress freedom of speech? Will legal cases be filed arguing that a comedian's joke(s) bears too much similarity to a copyrighted joke recited decades ago? Will girl scouts be free to tell copyright jokes around the campfire?

Comments

Apparently yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to say I was a Slashdot moderator and got chewed out for it.

Re:Apparently yes...

[fisted]

It's pretty obvious that the mods are downvoting, given that the mods are the only people capable of voting in the first place (with the exception of admins and potentially editors).

Re:Apparently yes...

[fisted]

also the fuck did you make me call modding "voting".

Re:Apparently yes...

[Big Hairy Ian]

I wish Ernest Scribbler had copyrighted his https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Simple

[s.petry]

No

Similarly, you can't Copyright a word, or a string of words. You can trademark a company name, but I can tell jokes about your Company all day long and not violate your trademark law. You can copyright very long strings of words as complete thoughts, but even then I can quote you all I like as long as I give credit.

If one could copyright a joke, countless comedians would have no possibility of a career. Jokes are remade over and over and over, in addition to being simply stolen between acts. (Intentionally avoiding digs at comedians known to steal other people's jokes.)

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop me if you've copyrighted this one:

There once was a man from Nantucket...

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you like fish sticks?

Re:Simple

[tomxor]

No

Similarly, you can't Copyright a word, or a string of words.

What... like a book?>

There is not hard line of "originality" the brain is input output with an arbitrary amount of processing, cases argue originality of creative works all the time, and everytime they draw an arbitrary line, so "can you copyright a joke"? that's subjective, it depends on the case, it depends on the Judge. (Yes copyright makes no sense)

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

"lets get ready to rumble" Go ahead and attend a sporting event and say that over the loud speaker system. Then go ahead and tell me you can't copyright a string of words.

Re:Simple

[orgelspieler]

You can copyright anything that you have created that has been recorded in some fashion, including a "string of words." If I wrote down a novel and creative joke and published it, and somebody performed the joke in public, they infringed my copyright. I'm rather curious how this will pan out, because Stephen Colbert's writers have been "stealing" material from @midnight, and that would make for a great lawsuit!

Re:Simple

[desdinova 216]

I thought he just had that trademarked, which is an equally ridiculous, but different idea.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't a joke inherently fall under the parody exclusion?

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

"... you can't copyright a word, or a string of words."

Is this really true?
Books are but a string of words.

There was a movie about this,
The man who invented the intermittent windshield wipers.

Re:Simple

[omnichad]

But when you paraphrase a joke, it doesn't usually lose anything - the novel/creative part is in the structure and not the wording. No matter which way it goes, there are few original jokes. Yet an obvious rip-off from something recent should maybe have some merit as a violation.

Jokes are really a method more so than content. While you could copyright a particular implementation of wording, the method could possibly be patented - if it's a novel joke. Again, there's LOTS of prior art out there. But less than a couple decades of protection is much more fair.

Re:Simple

[phantomfive]

The judge already ruled in this case, the answer is, "Yes." Sucks, but here's the quote from the article:

The jokes written by Kaseberg and O'Brien's staff, the judge ruled, are "sufficiently objectively virtually identical" in those three instances. To win, Kaseberg's lawyers will need to show that the defendants "willfully infringed Plaintiff's copyrights."

It's unfair but tbh I have trouble working up much outrage about it.

Re:Simple

[s.petry]

No

Similarly, you can't Copyright a word, or a string of words.

What... like a book?>

Selective reading at it's finest. Try not cherry picking points to make non-existent arguments with.

There is not hard line of "originality" the brain is input output with an arbitrary amount of processing, cases argue originality of creative works all the time, and everytime they draw an arbitrary line, so "can you copyright a joke"? that's subjective, it depends on the case, it depends on the Judge. (Yes copyright makes no sense)

A joke is not just a string of words. A joke is delivery, context, relevance to history/current events, etc... This is why jokes are recycled over and over again over generations. No, you can't copyright a joke. It is material that already exists in the public domain. If you have to go judge shopping to get the answer you want, it is an immoral position to hold.

Re:Simple

[Chris Mattern]

But when you paraphrase a joke, it doesn't usually lose anything

Well, sometimes. "Make like a tree and get out of here!" But you've touched on the heart of the matter. Copyright covers the exact representation. If somebody repeats your joke word for word, you may have a case. If they just use the idea, but use their own words, you don't. You can't copyright ideas.

Re:Simple

[phantomfive]

Wouldn't a joke inherently fall under the parody exclusion?

Weirdly, no......it has to be a valid parody. Whether or not something is a valid parody is of course a fuzzy line.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

No

Similarly, you can't Copyright a word, or a string of words.

What... like a book?>

Selective reading at it's finest. Try not cherry picking points to make non-existent arguments with.

Selective reading at it's finest. Try not reading more into something than actually exists. tomxor was simply asking a question, because quite frankly, your post made no god damned sense.

Re:Simple

[s.petry]

And it will be appealed and should be. The law should not favor a little guy suing a big guy any more than the reverse. Comedians with a reputation for stealing jokes become the brunt of them, and lose audiences.

Re:Simple

[phantomfive]

Here is a good example, where a parody was found not to be a valid parody, but instead a satire. If that case seems to be some satire you'd read in Kafka making the case a parody of itself, you are correct.

Re:Simple

[American Patent Guy]

If a joke is parody, yes. If it's merely told again, no. Parody is taking an expression that exists, and modifying it in a way to prove a point (such as exposing silliness, illogic, bad character of the author, etc.) If the modification doesn't prove a point or carry a message of its own, it isn't parody.

Re: Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I just flew in from from San Fran and boy is MY ASS sore. Take my wife ... please. She's a cunt.

Re:Simple

[Dog-Cow]

It is material that already exists in the public domain.

I don't like the idea of copyrighting jokes, either, but this argument is just plain wrong. Stories of all sorts have existed for centuries, or longer, but adaptations get copyright all the time. In this sense, jokes are just short stories.

Re:Simple

[dgatwood]

There once was a man from Nantucket...

who copyrighted a bucket.
The judge tossed the case
as moot on its face
and he heard the next case on his docket.

No?

Re:Simple

[tomxor]

There is not hard line of "originality" the brain is input output with an arbitrary amount of processing, cases argue originality of creative works all the time, and everytime they draw an arbitrary line, so "can you copyright a joke"? that's subjective, it depends on the case, it depends on the Judge. (Yes copyright makes no sense)

A joke is not just a string of words. A joke is delivery, context, relevance to history/current events, etc... This is why jokes are recycled over and over again over generations. No, you can't copyright a joke. It is material that already exists in the public domain. If you have to go judge shopping to get the answer you want, it is an immoral position to hold.

It doesn't matter if it's immoral, this is not about my opinion, I pretty much hate all copyright FYI... my point is YOU don't get to say if it's copyrightable, because what constitutes copyrightable work is continually pushed in courts, that's why people DO go shopping for judges, because the definition of creative work is subjective. There is no hard, objective, quantitative line to draw where you can say "that's not creative enough" which is why the entire premise is bound to devolve to the level just above the building blocks of any creative medium.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

You can copyright very long strings of words as complete thoughts

As in, a book? Because there are exactly zero books that I would call "complete thoughts", simply because they are too god damned long and go all over the place. A joke, on the other hand, is generally short and concise enough that I am sure everyone* would agree is a "complete thought". For example:

Two men decide to go out fishing one day. So they get in their boat and start making their way to their favorite fishing spot. The path to get there requires traversing through a narrow pass in the lake that is only wide enough for one boat to get through. As the men approach, they see Jesus standing in the middle of the pass. Confused, the men shout out "hey Jesus, move, you're in the way!"

Jesus replies back "no, I am the way".

See? Complete thought from start to finish. But don't get me wrong. At present, I am leaning towards the "can't copyright a joke" side. I am simply saying that your argument as to why is atrocious.

*Well, everyone but you I guess.

Re:Simple

[dougmc]

Similarly, you can't Copyright a word, or a string of words.

You absolutely can copyright a string of words, if it's long enough. And they don't have to be complete thoughts, either.

Here's a quick summary of what can and can't be copyrighted (page 3.)

Actually, based on existing law ... I'd say that jokes can be copyrighted as long as they've been recorded somehow -- written down, recorded audibly, etc. and especially if they've been published. One might argue that a really short joke ("Three guys walk into a bar. The fourth one ducks.") is too short, but a longer one? Like "The Aristocats"? Seems eligible to me.

Of course, the courts may see it differently, but I guess we'll see ...

You can copyright very long strings of words as complete thoughts, but even then I can quote you all I like as long as I give credit.

You have a strange view of copyright law.

{The entire text of the Harry Potter series} --J. K. Rowling

Of course, that's not what you meant, but it is basically what you said ...

What you seem to be referring to is "fair use". It certainly exists, but you've greatly oversimplified it.

Re:Simple

[i_ate_god]

> You can copyright very long strings of words as complete thoughts

how is a joke not that?

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, god, another armchair IP lawyer.

First, you can copyright a string of words. Some quite long strings of words that are copyrightable you might be familiar with: books. You may also be aware of some shorter ones, such as newswire stories. The key is not the length of the strings, but whether those strings are "an original work of authorship," meaning that a string has been independently created and is creative.

Second, you can't quote all you like with mere attribution. You're undoubtedly thinking of "fair use" which entirely depends on the context: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the work, the amount of the work used, and the effect of the use on the market for the work. So yeah, sometimes you can indeed quote me, but far less often than "all you like."

Third, you can tell jokes about a trademark because the jokes generally don't implicate the trademark. But if you think you can tell untrue jokes about the poor quality of Coca-Cola sodas or McDonald's hamburgers, though, you'd only be right because the companies that own those marks are well aware of the Streisand effect.

Fourth, you should know you're only rationalizing for your reptilian brain that has already decided jokes aren't subject to copyright. What you should do is think about it harder, because then you would realize the world is actually consistent with your jumped-to conclusion. An idea isn't subject to copyright, just a particular expression of that idea. The priest, rabbi, and imam can become doctor, lawyer and engineer, and with a few other changes, voila, you've got your own joke that is also subject to copyright protection.

Re:Simple

[phantomfive]

And it will be appealed and should be. The law should not favor a little guy suing a big guy any more than the reverse.

This is a statement of preference. While I largely agree with your preference, it is not a statement based on the law.
The judge however did make a decision based on law, which is why you should be worried.

Re:Simple

[Immerman]

> If you have to go judge shopping to get the answer you want, it is an immoral position to hold.

I agree completely.... but what does morality that have to do with the law?

Re:Simple

[parkinglot777]

so "can you copyright a joke"? that's subjective, it depends on the case, it depends on the Judge. (Yes copyright makes no sense)

Well, if it is written in a tangible medium, then yes it can be copyrighted. If it is just a tell-tell, then I am afraid it is not. Though, if one copyrights a joke, then it is against its purpose and it won't be a joke anymore...

From here...

Copyright is a form of protection provided by U.S. law to the authors of "original works of authorship" fixed in any tangible medium of expression. The manner and medium of fixation are virtually unlimited. Creative expression may be captured in words, numbers, notes, sounds, pictures, or any other graphic or symbolic media. The subject matter of copyright is extremely broad, including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, audiovisual, and architectural works. Copyright protection is available to both published and unpublished works.

Re:Simple

[s.petry]

It absolutely does matter if it's immoral. In the case of a law being immoral it is up to members of society to point out the immorality and demand change to law. This happens regularly in a direction against the populace, but does occasionally happen in the other direction (an should). Complacency in the face of immorality makes the complacent just as guilty as the oppressor.

Re:Simple

[HiThere]

And there are even "short stories" that are shorter than most jokes.
E.g.
"The last man on earth sat alone in a room,
There was a lock on the door."
I believe that's Frederick Brown (Wikipedia says he said "knock").

I believe this is now out of copyright, but it certainly was originally copyrighted. So length is not the sole criterion. And I also believe that this would be fair use in any case, as the entire work is necessary to make the point, and it's considerably shorter than this post. And this is well removed from the original context (The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction).

This may be significant for jokes, also. Often the changes to a joke are substantial, if only because of the changed context. And sometimes one could argue that a modified joke is a parody of the original.

But, in principle, I'm rather certain that a joke could be copyrighted. The question would usually be "Exactly what does the copyright cover?" as most "new" jokes are small modifications of pre-existing jokes, often placed in a new context. (But what was the original "light-bulb joke" a modification of? What was the original "elephant joke" a modification of? Would copyright of one elephant joke mean that the entire genera was under copyright?)

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a gay fish?

Re:Simple

[wonkey_monkey]

Similarly, you can't Copyright a word, or a string of words.

Really? Not even a string of about 75,000 words? Printed on bits of dead tree, for example?

Re:Simple

[uncqual]

but even then I can quote you all I like as long as I give credit.

No, it's not that simple. You can't, for example, take a Harry Potter book, make verbatim (i.e., "quote you all I like') copies and add a cite to the last page of your copies that gives credit to J. K. Rowling and then sell the copies.

Fair use is allowed of course so you can write a book review which includes quoting a couple paragraphs from a Harry Potter book and sell your review of the book to others.

Re:Simple

[s.petry]

The amount of people like you, who cherry pick a sentence from a post to argue with, is quite disturbing. I get that reading and comprehension skills are down across the US, but holy hell! There are a total of 3 sentences in that paragraph, and you can't get past the first!

Re:Simple

[Roger W Moore]

I believe this is now out of copyright, but it certainly was originally copyrighted. So length is not the sole criterion.

Correction: somebody claimed it was copyrighted. IANAL but unless that claim was tested in court it does not provide any evidence that length is not a factor in copyright law. Indeed there is strong evidence to the contrary since single words cannot be copyrighted. So all we know is that the length criterion is somewhere between one word and the lyrics to a song. However, I expect any length criterion depends strongly on context.

With a joke though things are different. The length does not matter because what is funny is the idea/situation the joke conveys and you cannot copyright ideas only an expression of that idea. So while you might be able to copyright the text of the original joke it would be easy to make very significant changes to the expression while preserving the idea.

Re:Simple

[sootman]

> No?

No. The meter's off. :-)

There once was a man from Nantucket
Who told all his lawyers to suck it.
He took a big toke,
Gave up on his joke,
Got really high and said "fuck it."

Re:Simple

[fahrbot-bot]

You can copyright very long strings of words as complete thoughts, but even then I can quote you all I like as long as I give credit.

You're confusing Copyright with Plagiarism.

Re:Simple

[HornWumpus]

It's an immoral act to let a sucker keep his money.

We need a new law to reflect this.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Your writing skills suck because your post does not adequately connect or explain how your first sentence should "not be taken literally". Sentences should build on one another, not just be three random thoughts. If you had used proper literary tools to explain your thoughts then maybe everyone would not be challenging you.

On another note:
The simple fact is that a joke is a string of words. Strings of words can and have been subject to copyright since nearly forever. The question is more around the specifics of this case. It think it is clear that the presence of the idea of "humor" doesn't make something UNABLE to be subject to copyright law. Especially since many novels, other literary works, "music" i.e. Wierd Al, and Art contain humor. Is a Stand up comedian's special subject to copyright? Is an artists cartoon subject to copyright? Is an original humorous short story subject to copyright? The answer to these would all be YES, without question.

The only question is if the law was violated in this case. Or in other words, did Conan read the joke "word for word" or nearly enough that it was not his own?

We get it, telling a good joke is MORE than words but that doesn't matter. That would be like saying "playing a good song is more than just the notes, I don't owe the writer anything" or arguing you can narrate an audio book because it takes MORE than just words to convey the feeling. Laughable arguments.

If you tell a different joke with the same idea that is fine but you can't just add an "umm" in there.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Your meter's off too, in the last phrase, FTFY:

There once was a man from Nantucket
Who told all his lawyers to suck it.
He took a big toke,
Gave up on his joke,
Got real high and said "Oh well, fuck it."

Burma shave

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

So while you might be able to copyright the text of the original joke it would be easy to make very significant changes to the expression while preserving the idea.

Don't say that too confidently. No ruling has been done yet. It is possible that the copyright extends to the general meaning of the joke, and not the exact phrasing. Personally, I hope jokes are copyrightable. This freedom of speech has gone too far, and this will most likely get people to STFU.

Re:Simple

[bws111]

Only if the retelling is a parody of the original. For instance, Weird Al creates parodies of songs, and that is not infringement. But if you copied Weird Al, that would be infringement because you are not creating a parody, you are just copying an existing work. Of course, if you parodied Weird Al, then you would be in the clear.

Re:Simple

[UnknownSoldier]

> Well, sometimes. "Make like a tree and get out of here!"

Source:

  right

"Make like a tree and leave"

Re: Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

If they just use the idea, but use their own words, you don't. You can't copyright ideas.

Copyright can cover ideas, and derived works. Though their is a fine line to walk between parody and derivative material. And some things you can more easily clone than others, like laser swords and beeping robots.

Re:Simple

[s.petry]

If enough members of society agree with you, you could have your way. Fortunately the majority of society is moral so laws like this have to be hidden in backdoor rulings and judge shopping. Too bad you can't see the need for basic logic and reason.

Re:Simple

[Frobnicator]

There are a few short works that have been fought in the courts. It is clearly a literary work, and it would probably qualify for originality. The question here is mostly about length.

The law doesn't specify a minimum length. Courts have ruled for coverage on works with only a few hundred words. There are children's books with under a hundred words that no lawyer would challenge over copyright protection. Daft Punk's lyrics to "Around the World" have registered copyright protection even though it is only three words repeated, although who knows if the courts would accept it.

Assuming this survives a trial, it would be interesting to see how it ends up. My guess is that judges would ultimately base decisions on the nature of the original creative work and the nature of the reuse, with the length being mostly irrelevant.

Damages in this case would be quite low as there is minimal economic harm and the joke probably was not subject to a registered copyright. But if the protections were allowed and many people registered copyrights on small jokes, they could be little landmines, which is the fear people (especially lawyers) have.

Even so, there is no clear answer.

Re:Simple

[qeveren]

A novel is just a string of strings of words. Why should that be copyright-able?

Re: Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately the majority of society is moral so laws like this have to be hidden in backdoor rulings and judge shopping.

The majority of society is gullible and short-sighted enough that you could get them cheering for it if you portrayed it properly to appeal to their emotions. It'd be resoundingly popular.

Too bad you can't see the need for basic logic and reason.

Says the pigeon to the stooge.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright NEVER extends to the general meaning of anything. Copyright is purely on the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Trump is a joke, and he trademarked his name.

Re:Simple

[HornWumpus]

A sucker and his money were lucky to get together in the first place.

The most moral outcome is for the suckers money to go to the most deserving, which is me, by definition.

Re:Simple

[dszd0g]

What would make the most sense to me is that they are covered by copyright but with a fair amount of fair use leeway.

Telling a single short joke from a comedian should be covered by fair use. It would be too easy for accidental copyright infringement without some leeway here.

However, if someone steals numerous jokes from a book, a movie, a blog, or a youtube video that should be copyright infringement. If they do it for commercial purposes, there are clearly damages that should apply. The person who stole the jokes off a blog should have obviously known they were stealing copyrighted material.

Re:Simple

[tomxor]

It absolutely does matter if it's immoral. In the case of a law being immoral it is up to members of society to point out the immorality and demand change to law.

The law is immoral and should be changed? what copyright law? having you been living on mars under a fucking rock - you can't change copyright unless you are at the table, and "people" will never be at the table, even if you were you can't tweak this law into morality, it is a flawed concept that will converge into stupid shit like this on one hand and DRM for books on the other.

The only thing you can do is not play the game, let the petty people fight over what can and can't be copied and who gets paid what, the rest of us will move on. By all means try to play their game though.

The point I was trying to make which I honestly thought I got across in my first post is that copyright is flawed, I would have thought any Slashdot reader would not need to be given examples of why. Excuse the ad hominem

Re:Simple

[tomxor]

The subject matter of copyright is extremely broad, including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, audiovisual, and architectural works.

(Emphasis added) Does standup comedy not effectively take this form?

Re:Simple

[Dragonslicer]

The subject matter of copyright is extremely broad, including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, audiovisual, and architectural works.

(Emphasis added) Does standup comedy not effectively take this form?

Yes, but it still only applies to the tangible medium. A video tape of a comedian's performance is definitely covered by copyright. Simply repeating a joke, especially if you don't use the exact same words, is a less clear situation.

Re:Simple

[Kiuas]

A joke is not just a string of words. A joke is delivery, context, relevance to history/current events, etc

You're correct but then you contradict yourself a moment later by saying:

No, you can't copyright a joke.

Because you most certainly can. Stand-up comedians are professional joke-tellers who copyright their performances and sell them off to publisher like Netflix all the time. The entire joke/performance itself is the artist's property.

I cannot go to a stand.up show, film it and sell the recording for money without breaking the law and being subject to fines. I can however memorize the entire script of the joke and tell it on camera myself but then it's not the same joke.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

No

Similarly, you can't Copyright a word, or a string of words.

What... like a book?>

Selective reading at it's finest. Try not cherry picking points to make non-existent arguments with.

There is not hard line of "originality" the brain is input output with an arbitrary amount of processing, cases argue originality of creative works all the time, and everytime they draw an arbitrary line, so "can you copyright a joke"? that's subjective, it depends on the case, it depends on the Judge. (Yes copyright makes no sense)

A joke is not just a string of words. A joke is delivery, context, relevance to history/current events, etc... This is why jokes are recycled over and over again over generations. No, you can't copyright a joke. It is material that already exists in the public domain. If you have to go judge shopping to get the answer you want, it is an immoral position to hold.

If that logic were at all sound you would not be posible to copyright a song.

The joke was published in written form on a blog then later performed without permission or compensation on TV. So pretty much exactly like if somone published sheet music for a song and later claimed copyright protection when somone else performed that song on TV.

Re:Simple

[Guignol]

care to explain this one ? I don't get it at all and I feel I'm missing a good one :)

Re: Simple

[Hognoxious]

Copyright can cover ideas

No it can't. It covers expressions of ideas. And no, that's not the same thing.

https://www.copyright.gov/help...

Re:Simple

[Hognoxious]

Amount of sand, number of people.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you read the unauthorized sequel to "Gone with the Wind"?

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

From memory, thirty years ago.

Blue Bug and the Bullies.

Run
Jump
Skip
Hop
Slide
Roll
Crawl
Dig
Hide

BOO!

This shows that I missed 3 words.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

A sucker and his money were lucky to get together in the first place.

The most moral outcome is for the suckers money to go to the most deserving, which is me, by definition.

And luckily s.petry agrees that " Fortunately the majority of society is moral", so you can snooker to your heart's content.

Re: Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realise that the post toxmor replied to already covered the book case?

Re: Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you are confusing "a joke" with "a whole show".

Re:Simple

[Ol Olsoc]

Because you most certainly can. Stand-up comedians are professional joke-tellers who copyright their performances and sell them off to publisher like Netflix all the time. The entire joke/performance itself is the artist's property.

Sure, and the entire show is the comedian's property. That makes sense. But if we reduce it to the minimum, and if a joke is a copyrightable object, is a sentence within that joke copyrightable? A couple words?

A rabbi, a Priest, and an Irishman walk into a bar. While usually the first sentence of a line of jokes, I've heard people say only that sentence and people laugh. So it's now a joke, someone owns it, and it can't be used any more.

Even a non complete sentence "A rabbi and a Priest..... gets laughs. And who is to say that a joke has to be funny? A comedian could stand up and recite numbers. Andy Kaufman did a lot of weird stuff like that.

Seems like the portal to the humorless society - which some might like.

Re:Simple

[Ol Olsoc]

You can copyright anything that you have created that has been recorded in some fashion, including a "string of words."

Let us put to the test. "Everybody loves Raymond" utilized dumfounded silence in many parts of the show, and that silence could often be quite hilarious. It's a joke.

So we have now gone from shows, to strings of words, to single sentences, to portions of sentences, and now silence is copyrightable.

Oh, and I'm putting all you bastards on notice that I went out and copyrighted "Copyright" as a joke this morning, and do not give anyone permission to use it. Cease and desist - you all have been warned.

Re:Simple

[Ol Olsoc]

Copyright covers the exact representation. If somebody repeats your joke word for word, you may have a case.

How about in a different language?

Re:Simple

[Scarletdown]

Stop me if you've copyrighted this one:

There once was a man from Nantucket...

Whose limericks never did rhyme.
Try as he might,
He could not get them to work out properly.
So he gave up and left to do something more useful.

Re:Simple

[Scarletdown]

The subject matter of copyright is extremely broad, including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, audiovisual, and architectural works.

(Emphasis added) Does standup comedy not effectively take this form?

Yes, but it still only applies to the tangible medium. A video tape of a comedian's performance is definitely covered by copyright. Simply repeating a joke, especially if you don't use the exact same words, is a less clear situation.

Memories of Delerious, by Eddie Murphy.

"Now I know most of you are going to go to work tomorrow and fuck up my jokes..."

"Then she said, goonie googoo."

"Hey, I'm Mr T. I'll rip your dick off with my ass!"

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have thought any Slashdot reader would not need to be given examples of why.

s.petry is a little special. He needs handholding through the steps to wiping his own arse.

Most of the time, he gets it all over his face.

Re: Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that the post toxmor replied to lacked enough coherent thought as to be utterly worthless?

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of times you place blame on someone else instead of accepting that your original post lacked coherence is quite disturbing.

Or put another way, there is exactly one thing in common with all these misunderstandings about your post; you.

Re:Simple

[AthanasiusKircher]

The length of a work is certainly a consideration in fair use doctrine. As someone who had to secure rights for publication of an excerpt from a short work, I can tell you generally speaking it's not covered under fair use if you quote the entirety (or even a significant segment) of a short copyrighted work. Fair use doesn't care how much of a work it takes to make your "point" -- if your point requires a substantial amount of the original work verbatim, it likely won't be fair use.

Re:Simple

[SeaFox]

care to explain this one ?

There once was a fellow named Guignol.
Who didn't get the limerick at all.
"Please explain?" he said.
But we'd all gone to bed.
And he was left with a humor quite small.

Re: Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition, you cannot patent or copyright "rounded corners".

The large portion of the patent must be infringed to make it valid. Just rounded corners is not enough even if the patent does state rounded corners as one of its descriptions.

The Apple iPhone example is a joke (mostly on purpose which I'm guilty of but is now sick of) that got told so much ignorant lemmings think it's real.

Re:Simple

[AchilleTalon]

You don't know anything about what you are talking. Trademarks and copyrights are two different things. You do not infringe a trademark by naming it, you infringe a trademark by using it to brand your product. Next, copyrights apply to original artistic work. You cannot copyright thoughts. Also, you infringe a copyright by not giving credit to the original owner and/or using someone's else artistic work to make money. So, yes, humorists and comedians are subject to violate someone's else copyright by using someone's else artistic work to make money without paying royalties and/or obtaining a right to use it. That's why an American produced TV series derived from a UK produced TV series will have to pay rights to the original authors to produce an adapted and remake of the original. I see no reason for this to not apply to jokes.

Re:Simple

[david_thornley]

The word was "knock". Those words weren't original to Brown, either; they had previously been touted as a very short science fiction story. Brown decided to write a story that started with those words. (He had a weird sense of humor.)

Those words are also mostly needed to express an idea that would be difficult to express as tersely in other words. That renders them as a bad prospect for copyright,

So, your "certainly was originally copyrighted" claim looks really dubious to me. Brown's story was copyrighted, but it was considerably longer than those words.

A joke is an idea, and the words are the expression of the idea. It would probably be possible to copyright the text, at least if the joke was long, but I really don't think that could stop people from telling the joke in their own words.

Re:Simple

[david_thornley]

Translations of copyrighted works are covered by copyright.

Re:Simple

[david_thornley]

We also need to consider the relationships of copyrights to ideas. Jokes are generally short sequences of words built around an idea, and some of them require pretty much the same words to express the idea. Copyright can't legally be used to limit the expression of ideas.

Re:Simple

[wonkey_monkey]

Since the first sentence was so blatantly wrong I didn't see much going any further.

Re:Simple

[wonkey_monkey]

Much point, dammit.

Re:Simple

[wonkey_monkey]

What about Sand People?

Re:Simple

[dgatwood]

"on its face" is the English translation of "prima facie", which is a legal term that means "at first glance". So the judge dismissed the case as being invalid because a bucket can't be copyrighted because physical objects don't fall within the scope of copyright. And a docket is a list/calendar of cases that are scheduled to be heard.

It's funny because Nantucket limericks almost invariably end with "f**k it", but I used a slightly less precise (but contextually appropriate) rhyme to avoid doing what was expected. In other words, it's funny in a situational irony sort of way.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us put to the test. "Everybody loves Raymond" utilized dumfounded silence in many parts of the show, and that silence could often be quite hilarious. It's a joke.

So we have now gone from shows, to strings of words, to single sentences, to portions of sentences, and now silence is copyrightable.

Can silence be copyrighted? 4'33"

Re:Simple

[jdschulteis]

Amount of sand, number of people.

What about Sand People?

The Sand People will soon be back, and in greater numbers.

Re:Simple

[wonkey_monkey]

Greater amounts.

Re:Simple

[Ol Olsoc]

Can silence be copyrighted? 4'33"

Ugh! Well, there is an old Maxim that "Art is anything you can get away with". Still the concept is batshit crazy.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

It should clearly be NO

I can tell a top joke - but no-one would laugh - some can tell it with style - some cannot. Besides joke formulas are always the same and in most cases offensive to someone - which is why telling a joke at a party or saying Merry Christmas - you can loose your job in Australia for that.
Most cultural taboos are known. And the Benny Hill formula for mixing girls with acts is kinda frowned upon nowadays - unless the compare is a dyke. The new ones are about new red tape, such as TSA, iTtards, or presidential wall building

Now if a script writer copied verbatim, an entire 1/2 hour show and all jokes, lines and lead ups - well that is a different kettle of fish

Re:Simple

[orgelspieler]

The idea of silence as humor is not a specific expression, and as such is not eligible for copyright protection. The precise "Everybody Loves Raymond" clip with said silence, is copyright-able, however. I do not know if there have been any lawsuits over 4'33". There have been copyright lawsuits over a single bass line, a photo of a red double-decker bus, a dictionary of made up Harry Potter words, King Kong, and sneaker design. (Side note, there was even a guy who was sued for infringing McDonald's trademark for using his own last name for his restaurant.)

You did not make up the word "copyright", therefore you cannot claim copyright thereupon. Further, you can face a fine of up to $2,500 for fraudulent copyright claims. I know you were joking, but be careful about what you slap a circle c on in real life. It's amazing that more copyfraud doesn't get punished, honestly.

Re: Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Was your ass sore because it was penetrated by an erect penis?

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

That's crazy talk

In other words...

[Fire_Wraith]

So you're saying copyright is a joke?

Re:In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the aristocrats are the ones keeping it in place...

Take My Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

...Please!

Microsoft Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

(c) 1985-2017 Microsoft Corp. All Rights Reserved.

Headline misread...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is copyright a joke?

Yes.

Carlos Mencia is going to be out of a job

[HumanWiki]

If you can copyright jokes...

or will end up owing a ton of money to people that are actually funny.

Re:Carlos Mencia is going to be out of a job

[cogeek]

Joe Rogan? Is that you?

Re:Carlos Mencia is going to be out of a job

[HumanWiki]

Joe Rogan? Is that you?

No, but I can tell you this.

I'm not a gay fish.

Re:Carlos Mencia is going to be out of a job

[Anonymous Coward]

But you are the cat's ass...

Re:Carlos Mencia is going to be out of a job

[Anonymous Coward]

I came here specifically to post what you posted.

I hope so...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause I got joke I want to copyright. It starts like this:

"Do you like fishsticks?"

Maybe

[SurenEnfiajyan]

Considering the patent/copyright holders' insanity, everything is possible. http://www.cracked.com/article...

America

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking up the laws. It wouldn't be so bad, but then they insist that every other country in the world has to follow their laws. Or else. Hey America, you ARE the joke - so copyright yourself maybe.

It sounds like...

[Anonymous Coward]

someone can't take a joke.

Headline not clear

[DontBeAMoran]

Dick stuck in ceiling fan.

Copyright this

[93 Escort Wagon]

Zwei peanuts were walking down the strasse. One was assaulted... peanut.

Re:Copyright this

[mrbester]

Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

Re:Copyright this

[93 Escort Wagon]

Great - thousands of Slashdotters just die... * ACK *

"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[Valacosa]

Probably not. This feels similar to the copyright situation surrounding recipes.

You can't copyright a recipe. You can copyright a particular description of a recipe, which is why many recipes come with flowery descriptions and pretty pictures. Those can be copyrighted. But the thing itself, the list of instructions, cannot be.

By the same token, it'd be unsurprising if the courts found that particular wordings or diagrams can be copyrighted, but the joke itself -- the end product -- cannot be copyrighted.

Conan isn't a hack, he's genuinely funny (IMHO). This is probably coincidental. Somewhat related (from Zach Wiener): An Open Letter to Sarah Silverman

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[omnichad]

What I don't understand is why recipes can't be patented. They are an implementation method for something novel (if it truly is novel and there is no prior art - like say the cronut).

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[PoopJuggler]

Right, if you copy the joke word-for-word it's a violation. If you tell the joke in your own way, it's not. Why does this need to be so complicated?

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are non-lawyers opining on this? Absolutely a joke is entitled to copyright protection once it's in fixed form. The analogy to recipes is entirely misplaced- the reason recipes are generally not subject to copyright protection is because they are not considered to contain creative (i.e. "artistic") content. The flowery descriptions and pretty pictures do have such content, which is why they are entitled to copyright protection. Seriously, do you doubt whether a joke contains creative content?

Whether a copyright in a joke is enforceable is a different question entirely. There, you'd look at exactly the same factors relevant in any infringement analysis- access to the work by the alleged infringer, how much was used, whether it was indeed copied or independently created, the purpose of its use, etc, etc. Keep in mind the protection would be for the particular expression of the idea- there's no copyright in the idea of a mysterious fruit knocking on a door or that the word "orange" sounds somewhat like "aren't,," but if I'm the first one to think of and fix "orange you glad I didn't say banana" that's absolutely mine. However, I probably don't have any recourse against "orange you happy I'm not another apple."

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[American Patent Guy]

I can't agree. Jokes aren't recipes for laughter. Copying a sequence of steps won't violate anyone's copyright, that is true, but copying an expression of something uncopyrighted is infringement. It's the expression that makes the joke funny, in most cases.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[bws111]

Recipes can be patented. But with thousands of years of cooking behind us, it will be very difficult to show that any given recipe is both novel and not obvious. This is why recipes are protected with trade secrets instead of patents.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[bws111]

Recipes can't be copyrighted because they are just a statement of facts, and statements of facts can not be copyrighted. Jokes are not statments of facts, they are creative works.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[omnichad]

Sounds like this is a good parallel for jokes then after all.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[bws111]

Except we are not talking about patenting jokes, we are talking about copyright.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[Kjella]

Probably not. This feels similar to the copyright situation surrounding recipes.

Pretty sure it's not. Copyright doesn't protect functional elements, like you can copyright the design of a car wheel but if you tried to claim the location and size of the bolts was infringing the court would reject it because they're functional requirements to attach the wheel to the car - that's why proprietary connectors are usually patented. Same with recipes, adding the same ingredients in the same order are functional elements to creating the same dish. To create an emotional response is not a "function", a joke is no more protected than a song, poem, painting or any other non-functional work.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[arth1]

Right, if you copy the joke word-for-word it's a violation. If you tell the joke in your own way, it's not. Why does this need to be so complicated?

In the case of puns, you can't reword it[*] much without losing the joke. In those cases, it might be a pun-ishable violation.

[*]: A good pun is its own reword.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[omnichad]

But like recipes, there's no way you're going to copyright a joke. Not the structure and delivery - only the specific wording of one telling. That is OP's point.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[PPH]

it might be a pun-ishable violation.

Definitely an o-pun and shut case.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[PCM2]

I can think of scenarios where recipes could be copyrighted; say, if they include a lot of flowery, descriptive language, or are written in a funny way, or they interpolate the author's personal anecdotes.

A mere list of ingredients, however, absolutely cannot be copyrighted. And if you took the highly-descriptive recipe mentioned above, stripped out all the fancy language and just left the directions, that would probably not be considered a derivative work, either. It would still just be a list of ingredients and some steps to combine them, and thus not subject to copyright.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is why recipes can't be patented.

This discussion revolves around copyrights, not patents. The two are different things. Intentional confusion over the terms, probably caused by the term "intellectual property" strikes again.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[WrongMonkey]

Songs are the closer analogue. The performance, the lyrics and any derivative works of a song can all be protected by copyright.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[HornWumpus]

Could you copyright the names of the players in 'Who's on first'? Just as an example...

A significant # of jokes are just plays on words. Those specific words could be copyrightable.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[omnichad]

Unless you're literally retelling the joke, you're probably making reference to the original joke in some sort of commentary/parody - which is protected as fair use.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[Dragonslicer]

Specifically, a recipe (or its end result) is a composition of matter, which is patentable. You can look up patent applications for pies and see that the rejections have to be over prior art.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[omnichad]

No confusion here - I already concluded that copyright is not going to happen, so I brought up the next protection in the arsenal. It's a more valid claim than copyright ever could be.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[Anonymous Coward]

But like recipes, there's no way you're going to copyright a joke. Not the structure and delivery - only the specific wording of one telling. That is OP's point.

And it's a stupid point, because in fact you can do exactly that. It's called "stage directions" in a screenplay. Additionally it misses the concept of a derivative work and the related case lay regarding musical perfomances.

As an example of how this applies to Music, Gene Rodenberry infamously wrote lyrics for the original Star Trek theme song that were never used in the show because by doing that be became a co-crteaor of the copyrighted song and this entitles to royalties whenever a it or a derived work (say the sonf with just the instrumentals) was played.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[Hognoxious]

You can look up patent applications for pies and see that the rejections have to be over prior tart.

FTFY.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[Dragonslicer]

Well played, sir.

Re:"Recipes" are a handy analogue here

[Hognoxious]

Jokes are not statments of facts

They totally are. I'm an Englishman and I once went into a pub with an Irishman and a Scotsman.

It's all about money, And Conan is the master...

[MindPrison]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Where Conan and his "staff" walked away with 45 Million dollars for "doing nothing". Just pure negotiations about a cancellation of a contract. And another 1.5million$ score: http://www.nydailynews.com/ent...

And we could go on, Conan...he's in love with the money, and at best - a very mediocre comedian.

No but..

[Anonymous Coward]

You can patent them, *buddum dum Chhe*

Ready-made outrage seeking a good cause

[mi]

Writer Alex Kaseburg has filed a lawsuit against TBS and Time Warner alleging that jokes recited on the Conan O'Brien show were stolen from his blog shortly after they were published.

If the blog was, indeed, the source of some of the jokes aired by the show, Mr. Kaseburg was wronged and is entitled to damages.

Will tyrannical politicians copyright critical jokes to oppress freedom of speech?

This is bullshit. First of all, a "tyrannical politician" can usually oppress you directly — no need to have the critical joke played and replayed during the civil court proceedings and entered into public records.

Second, parody and satire (especially against politician) are exempt from copyright laws to begin with...

Re:Ready-made outrage seeking a good cause

[Wulf2k]

"Mr. Kaseburg was wronged and is entitled to damages."

Not saying I agree with ripping off jokes, but what damages has he suffered? How has he been harmed?

Re:Ready-made outrage seeking a good cause

[mi]

Fewer people find his site funny — because they've heard (some of) the jokes before — and have not visited it as often as they would have otherwise. Accordingly, he lose some of the advertising revenue.

Add to that the "moral anguish" and similar catch-all terms — both from being ripped off and from being suspected by at least some people, of being the plagiarist himself...

Re:Ready-made outrage seeking a good cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, parody and satire (especially against politician) are exempt from copyright laws to begin with...

You made that up.

Re:Ready-made outrage seeking a good cause

[PCM2]

If the blog was, indeed, the source of some of the jokes aired by the show, Mr. Kaseburg was wronged and is entitled to damages.

Not necessarily. The judge has said he needs to prove "willful infringement" (a specific legal definition) to receive damages. This is likely because it would be impossible to assign a value to a single joke told within an hour-long comedy program, or to jokes that Kaseburg has published on his own blog without receiving any form of payment. The only damages he could possibly get would be statutory damages, where the court awards a somewhat-arbitrary amount, and that's why the "willful" part is necessary. It can be pretty hard to make a case for willful infringement, though. If Conan's writers did swipe the jokes, but did so under the assumption that they could do so because the jokes were not subject to copyright, that might be enough to spoil Kaseberg's case.

Re:Ready-made outrage seeking a good cause

[PCM2]

Not saying I agree with ripping off jokes, but what damages has he suffered? How has he been harmed?

Just off the top of my head: He has asserted his sole, exclusive right to use the jokes for any purpose, either now or later. Maybe he was planning to record an HBO special next month. He can't use the jokes for that purpose now, though, because Conan took them and distributed them on his much larger TV platform, effectively spoiling them. For that, Kaseberg would like the court to hit Conan where it hurts: the wallet. He can't prove any actual damages, but he can ask the court to give a financial slap on the wrist.

Re:Ready-made outrage seeking a good cause

[mi]

Second, parody and satire (especially against politician) are exempt from copyright laws to begin with...

You made that up.

did not...

Re:Ready-made outrage seeking a good cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but that doesn't say what you want it to say.

I suggest practicing your reading comprehension.

Re:Ready-made outrage seeking a good cause

[Anonymous Coward]

Linked document says nothing about "politician"[sic].

Re:Ready-made outrage seeking a good cause

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be me, but if you don't want your jokes distributed prematurely: then don't tell them yet. It is something different to copy an entire show, but jokes will be retold.

But I'm probably preaching to the choir right now, you just explained the possible reasoning why this could be copyrighted :)

Not sure about this...

[Mike Van Pelt]

I mean, what would this have meant for the career of Milton Berle?

Re:Not sure about this...

[HornWumpus]

'Who's on first' was a vaudeville standard. Many comics were _pissed_ when Abbot and Costello did it on TV, making it 'theirs' forever.

Re:Not sure about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Third base!

I'm not so sure ?

[King_TJ]

Unfortunately, though I can already imagine all sorts of bad scenarios that will come about from granting jokes copyright protections .... I'm not sure there's a strong argument to prevent the lawyers from hopping aboard this gravy train?

A professional comedian is essentially paid to deliver jokes and skits that make an audience laugh. In most cases, this is done with memorized lines, scripted and honed over time. In many situations (like late night TV), the host doing a bit of stand-up comedy as part of the show is using jokes purchased from writers who make the material for them.

So in that sense, yes - jokes have monetary value and it's customary to pay people to provide them for you.

Obviously, the DELIVERY of the lines is also a part of what makes a comedian "good" (and worth paying to see). But the same could be said for musical performances. We still extend copyright protection to songs, despite the fact that individual artists bring something unique when they perform them.

Re:I'm not so sure ?

[Valacosa]

>

... all sorts of bad scenarios that will come about from granting jokes copyright protections ...

Imagine a politician copyrighting all the possible jokes which could be made at their expense. That would be quite chilling.

Re:I'm not so sure ?

[OrangeTide]

Musicians pay to perform songs, usually a professional musician who performs for small audiences will join an organization like ASCAP to handle obtaining rights to music in order to legally perform.

If jokes are copyright, then the same sorts of organizations that musicians have used over the last several decades may also be appropriate. That means comedians will have a slice of their income taken out by these somewhat bureaucratic organizations.

Re:I'm not so sure ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Musicians pay to perform songs, usually a professional musician who performs for small audiences will join an organization like ASCAP to handle obtaining rights to music in order to legally perform.

Ha! No, that's not how it works. Musicians aren't Composers, Authors or Publishers, so the can't "join". That group harasses venues into paying fees based on room capacity. It doesn't matter if they can find a song ASCAP represents or if the room is ever full. Musicians and venue owners despise them them.

Re:I'm not so sure ?

[Kierthos]

I don't think we need to worry about that. There's an infinite supply of jokes to be made at the expense of politicians.

Re:I'm not so sure ?

[Anonymous Coward]

>

... all sorts of bad scenarios that will come about from granting jokes copyright protections ...

Imagine a politician copyrighting all the possible jokes which could be made at their expense. That would be quite chilling.

Not really, as to register the copyright they'd have to publish them, and there are a number of fair use exceptions that would prevent owning the copyright from allowing you to actually prevent people from retelling the jokes legally, not to mention the practical impossibility of enforcement.

This would be something like the nuclear version of the Streisand Effect.

Re:I'm not so sure ?

[guruevi]

You extend copyright protection to songs, not necessarily to a short series of notes. I would think an 'act' is copyrighted in the same way, an individual joke may not be. Either way, you should be able to find numerous similar jokes in the public domain that relate to the subject at hand and demonstrate them to be prior art.

Re:I'm not so sure ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, basically, with a few tweaks, one can turn any copyrighted material into a joke!:

main(){
    extrn a,b,c,d,e,f;
    putchar(a); putchar(b); putchar(c); putchar(d); putchar(e); putchar(f); putchar('!*n');
    }

a ‘good’;
b ‘-bye';
c ‘, cr’;
d ‘uel’;
e ‘worl’;
f ‘d’;

Re:I'm not so sure ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Musicians pay to perform songs, usually a professional musician who performs for small audiences will join an organization like ASCAP to handle obtaining rights to music in order to legally perform. If jokes are copyright, then the same sorts of organizations that musicians have used over the last several decades may also be appropriate. That means comedians will have a slice of their income taken out by these somewhat bureaucratic organizations.

If you're talking about performing in bars/clubs/coffeehouses, it's the venue, not the musician, who pays the performance rights organizations like ASCAP and BMI. It's done that way because it's much easier to collect from someone who has tangible assets and a permanent address.

I agree that these organizations might expand to include comedy, or a similar rights clearance organization might spring up.

If someone would...

[grumpyman]

If someone would copyright the word "copyright", than we don't need to hear about this stuff anymore.

Re:If someone would...

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish I could have trademarked "DMCA take down", and patented filing patent paperwork.

Re:If someone would...

[TheEden]

Then you`ll have to pay every time you hear about this stuff.

Let's copyright everything

[OrangeTide]

Let's just crank it all the way up on this intellectual property stuff. Sue everyone, nobody makes any money, and everyone is afraid to even hum a tune while driving. Only then will average people actually give a shit about copyright, patent and trademark reform.

Re:Let's copyright everything

[American Patent Guy]

There are lots of exceptions for copyrights. No one is going to sue you for humming a tune, because the money they would recover would be unworthy of the effort. Your lack of knowledge of the law isn't a reason to dispose of it.

Re:Let's copyright everything

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is going to sue you for humming a tune, because the money they would recover would be unworthy of the effort.

Mandatory (user cannot remove) Smartphone app that listens for melodies (or indeed any audio), then sends it to a central licensing server for conformation. If it's a match, the app auto charges you for the royalties to your $WHATEVER Pay, Paypal, or your cell service provider. This could be gained through intense lobbing, or private agreements with cellphone manufacturers and / or service providers. (Much like how those 3 strikes rules in various places, or Youtube's content ID filters were implemented.)

That can be done today with one OTA update to your phone. (Think Musicbrainz or any app that identifies songs for you so that you can buy them online.)

I'd imagine in the future when mind machine interfaces are standard the crap will be built into your skull.

Don't assume just because it's not happening currently, that it cannot ever happen.

Re:Let's copyright everything

[American Patent Guy]

A person would have to agree to have that on their phone, and carry it around with them (so they could be charged for humming a tune covered by copyright). No phone maker is going to make that mandatory, because no one would buy the phone. [Well, maybe if it was an iPhone. :-) ] Humming is also arguably a fair use of the music being repeated.

Re:Let's copyright everything

[OrangeTide]

If we have microphones in all our cars then sure, we could easily go after people for humming a tune. We have the technology to do this.

I hope your lack of knowledge of rhetoric and hyperbole doesn't lead you into any embarrassing situations.

Re:Let's copyright everything

[OrangeTide]

Agreement is implicit through a click through or shrink wrap license. If carriers required the app on phones because groups like the RIAA paid them to have it, then most people wouldn't have much choice. Most people in the US buy phones through their carrier, and the carrier can put just about any requirement on the manufactures before agreeing to sell those phones in their store.

Individually we have very little control over what kind of monitoring goes on. And very little control over how corporations choose to harass you legally. It's very naive to think the free market will sort out an issue that few really care about.

CAN YOU SELL TO SAVE YOUR ASS?? down 500 points!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then SELL!!
SELL!!
SELL!!

What about the world's deadliest joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously couldn't have the joke documented in the copyright, unless you wanted sudden, violent comedy.

GNU

[Anonymous Coward]

Better question is, can you copyleft a joke?
Just imagine a set of jokes that require you to distribute their English counterpart every time you use it.

Re:GNU

[Rob Riggs]

Just imagine a set of jokes that require you to distribute their English counterpart every time you use it.

It's even funnier in its native Scheme.

Shitty Jokes

[OverlordQ]

If his twitter is any indication, I'm not sure what decent material there was to steal.

BOB HOPE

[Anonymous Coward]

Bob Hope copyrighted all of his one line jokes.

It's copyrighted the moment it's fixed.

[American Patent Guy]

Are jokes covered by copyrights? The answer is a resounding "yes", because they are "works of authorship" covered by the USC.

Can you "copyright" one? That's nonsensical, because the rights begin the moment the joke is told or written down. The author of a joke doesn't need to apply anywhere to get copyrights.

Did O'Brien infringe Mr. Kaseburg's copyrights? Well, perhaps, but proving that O'Brien got his material from Kaseburg might be difficult. Proving similarity isn't enough, because O'Brien could have come up with the jokes himself, or gotten permission from someone else that came up with the jokes. Kaseburg would have to prove the value of those jokes, which could be much less than his costs of prosecuting a law suit in federal court, even if he were awarded lawyer fees.

Re:It's copyrighted the moment it's fixed.

[PCM2]

Can you "copyright" one? That's nonsensical, because the rights begin the moment the joke is told or written down. The author of a joke doesn't need to apply anywhere to get copyrights.

Some of the rights, yes. Not necessaily the right to sue for monetary damages.

Re:It's copyrighted the moment it's fixed.

[American Patent Guy]

That's like saying that you don't have a right to throw a misbehaving drunk out of your bar until he gets drunk and misbehaves. The right to throw drunks out of bars exists prior to the act, just as the right to enforce copyrights exists before infringement.

Re:It's copyrighted the moment it's fixed.

[david_thornley]

If you tell a joke and it isn't recorded, then it isn't in a fixed form and is ineligible for copyright. If written down, it's copyrighted, assuming it's eligible. It may be considered too short, or unoriginal, or too tied with an idea, but that's a matter for courts to settle.

Registering a copyright has some advantages. For example, it's possible to sue for statutory damages rather than actual damages. It would be hard to prove that someone telling your joke damages you, so you'd probably want to go for statutory damages.

Of course, copyrighting individual jokes is expensive, and copyrighting a collection opens the door to a claim of fair use, assuming you can show that the joke was taken from you in the first place.

Personally, it doesn't sound worth the bother to me.

Re:It's copyrighted the moment it's fixed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are jokes covered by copyrights? The answer is a resounding "yes", because they are "works of authorship" covered by the USC.

It's definitely not a resounding yes, because the USC is not the highest law in the land, and neither is the original (pre-Bill of Rights) Constitution - the Bill of Rights is the highest law in the land - and James Madison deliberately made the Bill of Rights open-ended.

To be compliant with the Bill of Rights, any legitimate legal argument would need to consider whether making jokes subject to copyright could violate any rights the people might wish to assert as being "retained by" them (9th Amendment), or "reserved to" them (10th Amendment), such as the right to ethical practice of law.

Anything else is oath-breaking on the part of the legal professionals involved, unethical practice of law, and an infringement of fundamental rights under the colour of law - grounds for both civil suit and criminal prosecution. In the event that a federal judge were to ignore their obligations to recognize the authority of rights arising under the 9th Amendment, that would also be a violation of the constitutional requirement of good behaviour - and this applies also to the Supreme Court.

With the current Admin anything's possible

[rsilvergun]

There's a major sea change going on to a much, much more pro-corporate environment. One of America's biggest products is IP so it's not surprising to see stronger copyright law. As our courts get stacked with more and more pro-corp appointees expect to see changes.

Re:With the current Admin anything's possible

[bwd777]

Now that's funny!

I would make a joke...

[__aaclcg7560]

But I offended the Beavis and Butthead crowd earlier today.

Where do we draw the line?

[jediborg]

When will Americans come to their senses and realize this failed experiment that is 'copyright' and 'intellectual property' is a disaster? When at first it only regulated the printing of books, which required expensive equipment to produce, it KINDA made sense, mostly only to the big publishers but the regular people didn't care that much so the politicians made copyright a law. Now that it has logically been extended to all kinds of things, code, tv shows, movies, and now jokes, and the length of copyright is 150 years + the life of the author i think its becoming absurdly clear that Copyright law is at its very core a violation of the freedom of speech. It does not encourage innovation. It does not protect the jobs of artists or creators. It does nothing but put more money in the pockets of lawers and giant corporations with the money to buy, and legally maintain and defend, their copyrights.

Re:Where do we draw the line?

[PCM2]

When at first it only regulated the printing of books, which required expensive equipment to produce, it KINDA made sense

I think you've got that a little backwards. Reproducing books was a lot more laborious (and therefore expensive) before the invention of the printing press. The invention of relatively easy mass reproduction is what gave rise to copyright.

Re:Where do we draw the line?

[jediborg]

so you are saying that from the very beginning copyright was all about protecting the rich from competition? *gasp* i am shocked!

Re:Where do we draw the line?

[bws111]

You are an idiot. Copyright exists to protect the author FROM the publishers. The publishers do not receive copyright protection. Your idiotic statement is basically 'now that it is easy to publish, there is no reason to protect the author from unauthorized publishing'. How does that make any sense? You might as well say 'back when the only way to kill someone was hand-to-hand, murder laws KINDA made sense, but now that anyone can shoot a gun there is no reason for those laws'.

Re:Where do we draw the line?

[david_thornley]

Copyright used to be about protecting the publishers, not the author.

Re:Where do we draw the line?

[bws111]

That was not copyright, it was licensing the press. Copyright has always been about the author.

Why did the fowl meander over the path?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol!!! ©®

Here's the joke-

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you copyright a joke?

Of course! Just write very legibly to copy the joke right.

- ba - dum - pssss!

PS: do not copy me (tm) (c) (r) (HmbG) (etc...)

You copyright *expression*, not *ideas*.

[hey!]

A joke, as a verbal utterance, has to contain both an idea, and some form of expression of that idea. The idea is not copyrightable, but the expression certainly is *if it is sufficiently original*, which means it has to be long enough to be non-obvious.

Take the joke, "I just flew in from Cleveland and boy are my arms tired," which was probably funny the first time it was ever used. The idea behind the joke is the confusion between two senses of the verb "to fly". This version joke is such a straightforward and minimal embodiment of that idea that it seems unlikely to me that it could be copyrighted.

Verbal jokes on the other end of length and complexity scales, like the Abbott and Costello "Who's on first" routine seem very likely to me to be copyrightable.

Likewise non-verbal embodiments of a gag may be copyrightable, such as a political cartoon or a physical slapstick. But individual expressive elements are likely too small to be copyrightable. For example if I depict the president as a baby in diapers -- that's been done before, but I'm on safe ground. But if I copy too much about how another cartoonist represents the president's character graphically then I've crossed a line, albeit a fuzzy one.

But...

[roc97007]

...what if they're NOT FUNNY?

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter, it's still protected. Just ask Hollywood about all the shit they pump out.....

Knock, knock

[PPH]

Who's ther.... [DMCA Takedown notice received]

Re:Knock, knock

[Anonymous Coward]

That's badly worded, you should have said:

[content removed at the request of author]

Lol is this a south park troll?

[burtosis]

Because that episode was damn funny.

Go ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll call it satire and laugh while you cry, you culture stealing sons of whores.

Will this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Find out next time on Dragon Ball Z

In Soviet Russia....

[Anonymous Coward]

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page.

The Aristocats!

[xbytor]

> Like "The Aristocats"? Seems eligible to me.

Nope. The thing about the Aristocrats is that every comic does their own version. The arch of the joke and the last line is the only thing each version shares. The details are unique to the comic.

Re:The Aristocats!

[Anonymous Coward]

dougmc said AristoCATS , not AristoCRATS. Yes I know there is also an Aristocrats, but I chose to believe that they typed exactly what they meant.

Re:The Aristocats!

[Cajun Hell]

It sounds like you're saying they're derived works of the original Aristocrats joke.

If I make a video that starts out with a mouse named Mickey (or a crime fighter named Batman, or a mafia guy named Corleone) who happens to experience totally difference hijinx than he does in any Disney video, lawyers still say that's a derived work of their client's copyrighted work. And that's going to have a lot less in common with anything Disney, than what all Aristocrats jokes have in common.

Yes you can copyright a joke.

[gurps_npc]

Copyright protects any original idea. Which brings us to some limitations:

1) You have to prove it is original. Good luck with that, most jokes are derivative. They have to be, because by nature they are short, and people have making jokes for thousands of years.

2) You can't copyright the concept, i.e. the ingredients. Given the shortness of most jokes, that means that relatively minor changes can invalidate the copyright. Delivery alone might be sufficient.

3) Parody is a clear exception, which can be very likely for a joke. Making fun of someone else telling a joke may be "Meta", but it can work.

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also copyright recipes and catchphrases. I doubt anyone would come after you for using them in most cases, but they would be within their legal rights to do so.

Of course ...

[Thanatiel]

That's what the patent office is for.

Re:Of course ...

[amoeba1911]

Patent, Trademark, Copyright are 3 very different things.

Re:Of course ...

[Thanatiel]

This was meant as sarcasm. We just had news about Apple's new patents.
But I know it does not translates properly in text, so I guess it's on me.

Guy walks into a bar

[amoeba1911]

gets charged for felony copyright violation.

Where IP law doesn't exist

[RogueWarrior65]

Have you noticed that there is no concept of intellectual property in Star Trek and Star Wars? One can argue that IP law is preventing us as a species from making huge technological leaps. Certainly tort law is stifling innovation and preventing Darwin from thinning the herd. Perhaps Shakespeare was right but I won't quote him here lest the estate want a license fee.

Re:Where IP law doesn't exist

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you noticed that there is no concept of intellectual property in Star Trek and Star Wars? One can argue that IP law is preventing us as a species from making huge technological leaps. Certainly tort law is stifling innovation and preventing Darwin from thinning the herd. Perhaps Shakespeare was right but I won't quote him here lest the estate want a license fee.

Star Wars arguably opens with a Warship opening fire on civilians in an attempt to enforce a copyright.

Also more directly there's an Episode of Voyager where the doctor sues the publisher of his holonovel for violating his copyright by continuing to publish it after he realized it was offending the rest of the crew.

can I copyright something *I* think is a joke?

[porky_pig_jr]

Say, the words "President Trump". Suppose I think it's a joke. Can I copyright it as a joke even if it's probably already copyrighted (but not as a joke)?

Joke/poem

[Anonymous Coward]

see Aram Saroyan's one-word poem

lighght

published in two copyright protected publications (righght?) He got paid $500 NEA

There are many other examples of short verse/jokes, copyright protected, eg Robert Frost The old dog barked backward without getting up. I can remember when he was a pup. Or the more well known Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker (Ogden Nash...many other two liners)

There was a guy in California who published cards with witty sayings and I knew at least one editor who had to fork over a payment in order to keep from going to court.

Something the Judge Said Should Apply to Business

[theshowmecanuck]

The judge said this: "[S]imilarities derived from the use of common ideas cannot be protected; otherwise, the first to come up with an idea will corner the market." This is in essence the problem with business process patents. It's why patenting a general idea is bad; like what most process patents are doing.

Asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a asshole just for thinking about it

Funny or not ?

[Archfeld]

Does a joke have to be funny or is it just a string of words ? Who determines if it is funny or can you just get in trouble for saying a sentence or 2 that someone else used before you did ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The Aristocrat's

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that include the world's dirtiest joke? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats

Amy Schumer hardest hit...

[Anonymous Coward]

*rimshot*

Roses...

[Anonymous Coward]

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
In Soviet Russia
Joke copyrights you!

Can you Copyright a Dictionary?

[neoRUR]

If you can copyright a dictionary then all derived works would also be copyrighted....?

Why not?

[unixisc]

If you can copyright rounded corners, or particular chip designs or methods, what's so sacred about a joke that would prevent it from being copyrighted? I'd argue it should be easier to copyright art than copyright engineering

send take down notices all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

You dont have to actually own the content.
Ruin their game.

Of course you can.

[sabbede]

You can copyright any original material you produce.

But let's not forget that there's an exemption for use in parody.

How many engineers it takes 2 change 1 light bulb?

[Anonymous Coward]

0.9999999997 + 4 copyright lawyers.

Conan O'Brien

[ebvwfbw]

The real joke was if Conan stole jokes off of a web site, would anyone notice?
For years the answer was no because nobody listened to Conan. Bound to catch up to him sooner or later.