... Although the scope of copyright protection is very broad, it isn’t infinite. There are certain works that just don’t qualify for a copyright.

One of the requirements of U.S. copyright law is that the work must exist in a tangible, fixed form. This rules out some ideas. You may have invented a wonderful dance routine or a great impromptu comedy sketch, but unless they are noted in some way and described with specificity, you can’t copyright them.

If a work is created using nothing but information that is readily available to all people and that lacks the injection of originality, it will also fall short of copyright protection. Sorry, your idea to copyright the tape measure just won’t fly.

Procedures and methods don’t receive protection, either. Does that mean that just anyone can steal your Aunt Jenny’s recipe for bean soup? Not necessarily.

The ingredient list and the basic process of creation won’t be protected, but if she’s written it down, given it a pithy name, and has described the process of making the soup in her own words, that will be protected. Sure, someone could take the recipe, re-write the instructions, etc., but there would be some protection in place for some of her hard work.

You can’t copyright short slogans, names or titles, either. That’s why a recent reported effort by Donald Trump to copyright the expression, “You’re fired” was doomed before it started.

Some things are just too common and too much a part of the collective consciousness to be claimed as a property eligible for copyright protection.

One of the best examples of this stemmed from the efforts of a directory publishers attempt to develop a phone book to compete with the one offered by a local telephone service provider.

The provider refused to give the other publication a list of its customers and their phone numbers, claiming the information belonged to them. Undaunted, the competing company simply purchased a copy of the telephone service providers directory and culled the information from it.

The matter ended in front of the Supreme Court. The Court determined that the actions of the competing directory publication did not represent an infringement of copyright.

It maintained that originality was a key to warranting copyright protection and that a mere statement of facts (in this case, names and numbers) didn’t represent information worthy of copyright protection.

Similar cases have ended with identical conclusions. Einstein couldn’t copyright a mathematical formula. The phone company couldn’t claim a copyright to the Johnson’s phone number. Your Aunt Jenny can’t claim a copyright to the ingredient list that makes up her bean soup.

Most works do receive protection, but not everything fits under the wide umbrella of copyright protection .... (cont'd)