Copyright meanings of names

....public domain?

[mcavill]

I hope this isn't too specific for the forums...if so please snip away...

As far as infringement of copyright goes, how do meanings of names, get classified? - it seems to me that most of meanings are now accepted as facts, which I believe are not covered by copyright.

Could a list of names and meanings could be protected by copyright, as there has been labour, skill, effort to put that list together, which should be protected.

However, as an example, could you own the copyright on the meaning of the name Roger or Brett? And as such would there be a problem having a list of names, including the copyrighted meaning of Brett?

Any (useful :)) opinions appreciated...

[rogerd]

In very general terms, it seems like lists of names (e.g., your phone directory) aren't copyrightable except where the presentation is unique. (This may vary from country to country.)

With names, there can also be trademark issues. Remember Microsoft Bob?

I'm not sure what you mean by the "meaning" of names, but unless the meaning is expressed in tangible form it's probably not copyrightable. It might be trademarkable, e.g., the "PC user interface" meaning of "Bob" might have prevented someone else from using even a common name like "Bob" for a similar purpose.

Roger^TM,(C) ;)

[mgream]

After the Festo decision, it is clear that the test for copyright is that a "modicum of creativity" is required, rather than any "sweat of the brow".

However, subject to the "de minimus" tests, a name or a phrase is typically too insignificant to attract copyright. However, some cases have shown that in some circumstances, it is possible that a short collection of words can attract copyright (e.g. in the case of song lyrics where it is obvious that the lyrics were copied by another artist).

However, you are talking about "meaning", which is a little different. Certainly you can own the copyright in a specific expression that describes the meaning of name, however you can't own the rights in the "idea" of the name itself. Although meanings are facts, there are many ways to represent the specific fact, so depending upon the creativity involved in expressing that fact, it may attract copyright.

In the case of a list, the statement in Festo is clear: facts, or lists of facts, are not copyrightable per se: a modicum of creativity is required in a work for it to attract copyright. You could not prevent someone from taking the "general meaning" out of your work, but you can prevent someone from taking the "specific expression" of that general meaning, depending upon the amount of creativity involved. If your list is sufficiently creative, it has protection, otherwise it doesn't.

[Dan_Norder]

Like mgream says, facts aren't covered by copyright. The way those facts are explained is, however. If you directly copy someone else's list of names and the accompanying text describing the meanings you probably have a violation. If you put the meaning into your own words (depending upon how much this is even possible) you have the copyright on your expression of those facts.

If the list is simple like (going off the top of my head, not guaranteeing these are right):

Daniel: God's judge
Diana: Roman goddess of hunt, "Bright lady"
Donna: Lady or woman

Then it's difficult for that to be creative enough to be copyrighted, but I still wouldn't copy it directly.

Better would be (again, off the top of my head, don't take my word for it):

Daniel: (from Hebrew) Biblical character, book of Old Testament, "Lord's Judge"
Diana: (from Latin) "Bright goddess" -- Roman equivalent of Artemis, Greek goddess of the hunt, twin sister of Apollo
Donna: (from Latin) "Woman" or "lady"

Don't know if that is clear enough for you.

[mcavill]

Thanks for those replies - that's made it a little clearer, I guess the main question for me to answer is how creative have I been building my list...

[Ralph_Slate]

This is a grey area.

The meaning of a name is most likely a fact, and as such, cannot be copyrighted or trademarked. However, I think you will run into "unfair business practice" issues if you use a competing site or source for your information.

There is no direct protection for a factual list of data, but there may be remedy for someone grabbing your list of data and republishing it verbatim under such unfair business practice laws. Federal law describes a business practice as unfair "when it offends an established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers".

For example, if you go to www.zelo.com and page through every conceivable name and put them on your site exactly as they appear there, I think that zelo.com could sue you under unfair business practice laws, and just might win.

The problem is, what source should you use to do your research to compile these definitions? The answer is "many sources".

Your best bet would be to first find books that are not covered by copyright anymore -- like pre-1922 books (don't hold me to the exact date though) and use them as your source -- citing them, of course, for good research practice.

Then, for newer names, you can probably use a variety of sources to come up with the meaning, and the more you paraphrase the definition, the better off you'll be. For example, if I use zelo.com to look up my name, it says "Wolf Counselor". If you get 3-4 different meanings from several sources, and you compile them all (or pick the most common), and then make the definition more verbose, you'll be able to defend any accusations of unfair business practices because you've used factual information from multiple sources, you've credited those sources, and you've added originality to the data.

Ralph