5 Things That Can’t Be Copyrighted


Creative Commons License photo credit: El Mariachi 94

Modern copyright law can feel extremely broad at times. Every creative work made, whether it is a doodle on a napkin, a photograph or a poem, once it is fixed into a tangible medium of expression, the creator holds the copyright to it. No notice nor any further action is required (though registration with the U.S. Copyright Office has many added benefits).

Still, there are many things that can not be copyrighted. They either don’t fall under the jurisdiction of copyright or don’t qualify for its protection. There are also exemptions and that place some content immediately into the public domain.

So if you’ve ever wondered about the things you can’t copyright, here is a short list of five of the more important ones.

1. Titles and Names

Copyright protection does not extend to titles, names, slogans or short phrases, the Copyright Office has made that much very clear. You can not copyright your name, the title of your post or any short phrase that you use to identify a work.

The reason is that copyright is designed to protect works of creative authorship, it is not designed to protect how that work is identified in the marketplace, the same goes for people and places. Furthermore, such short phrases rarely meet the requisite level of creativity to be considered for copyright protection.

Caveat: Titles may not be copyrighted, but if they are used to identify a business, good or service in the marketplace, they can be given trademark protection. If you use a title in a way that might cause confusion in the marketplace, there could be trademark issues. However, if you want to make a post entitled “5 Things That Can’t Be Copyrighted”, you are free to do so.

2. Ideas

Ideas can not be copyrighted because they are not fixed into a tangible medium of expression. For a work to be copyrighted, it has to be written down, saved to a hard drive or somehow otherwise fixed.

For example, if you give a speech but fail to write it down first and it isn’t recorded, there is no copyright protection. Likewise, if you tell an idea to a friend, you don’t receive copyright protection if they run with it and use it for themselves, that is, unless you write it down.

However, even ideas that are fixed do not receive protection in and of themselves. Rather, it is the expression of the idea that is protected. My “5 Things That Can’t Be Copyrighted” post is fixed, but you can certainly write your own post with the same title and idea. However, you can not use my exact words, unless, of course, you follow my CC license.

Caveat: When it comes to derivative works, there can be a lot of gray area between an uncopyrightable idea and an infringing derivative. You can, for example, write your own book about a boy wizard and a wizard school, but you can’t use any of the characters from Harry Potter. Where the line is drawn is often murky and usually decided on a case-by-case basis. Also, in many cases ideas can be patented, such as inventions, but that enters into another area of intellectual property.

3. Works By the U.S. Federal Government

Works by the U.S. Government are placed directly into the public domain as the Federal government is barred from holding copyright in its work. This is why NASA’s images, which are very popular on the Web, can be freely copied and shared and also why laws and statutes can be posted anywhere online.

There are many reasons for this, the first being that taxpayer money is spent on creating the works so it is fair they should be given back to the populace. Also, it’s a freedom of speech issue as the government can not use copyright to stifle criticism.

Caveat: This is not true in all countries. Australia, Canada and the UK all have crown copyright, that enables the government to hold copyright protection to certain works. Also, the U.S. government can hold copyrights in works if they transferred to it, for example by contractors. Also, the government has other laws, such as state secrecy laws, to prevent the distribution of information.

4. Works Without Authorship/Facts

Though the photos that come with your calendar are probably copyright-protected, the calendar itself is not. Likewise, you can’t copyright the lines on a notebook-ruled paper or, sadly for the phone companies, even telephone directories are not protected.

The reason is that a work has to have a requisite level of creativity in order to qualify for copyright protection and if a work is just a repetition of facts without any creativity, it isn’t protected. This is true even if a great deal of effort went into making the product, as with a phone book.

Likewise, facts and information can’t be copyrighted though the expression of those facts often can be.

Caveat: The level of requisite creativity is actually fairly low. A phone book may not be copyright protected, but a top ten list of the funniest names in the phone book might be. Also, other countries, including the UK and Australia, follow a “sweat of the brow” doctrine that says a collection of facts can be copyrighted if the collector underwent a great deal of effort to compile them (and didn’t merely copy from another source).

5. Fashion

This may surprise many, but fashion designers, currently, enjoy no copyright protection in their work. Their designs are not covered under the current code even though architectural and even vessel hulls are protected.

The reason is because fahion pieces are considered useful articles and, as such, only enjoy copyright protection for certain elements and “only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.”

In short, a pattern on a shirt might be copyrightable, but the shirt itself is not. Likewise, an intricate belt buckle design might qualify for protection but not the belt itself.

However, the overall cut, colors and style do not enjoy any protection at all.

Caveat: Fashion designers can, if they wish to go through the time and expense, paten their designs. Also, as mentioned above, elements of a useful article may qualify for copyright protection separate from the work itself. Finally, this is not universally true and legislation is almost constantly being circulated to weigh the possibility of expanding copyright protection to cover fashion. Finally, do note that trademark still protects the names of the companies that make and distribute the clothing.

Bottom Line

Copyright is everywhere. Every video, every picture, every written piece, every audio file, every sculpture, every building design created this year will be copyright protected, at least initially and at least to some degree.

However, there are places that copyright’s protection does not reach and those places are worth noting just as strongly as what it does protect.

Regardless, the next time someone says that everything is copyrighted these days, here are five examples of things that aren’t and, in most cases, likely never will be.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it with your friends. Also, you can subscribe to the RSS feed or sign up for our email newsletter below:
Join The Plagiarism Today Mailing List

Facebook Comments

Thanks, it means a lot, especially coming from you!

Pbfriedman says:

Great article. Concise, clear, and practical. I wish I could get my law students to write this usefully.

Thank you Jonathan!

They can claim that you're violating their copyright at any point, the question is whether they'll be right or not if it goes to court. In your case, commentary and criticism is among the most protected kinds of speech when it comes to fair use so you would have a very strong argument. However, the actual merits come down to the individual case. If you want, you can email me the details and I'll have a look for you.Hope this helps some!

Hi Jonathan, Great post. I have a question: If I am writing a piece that is critical of someone that in my opinion is an online scammer, and I quote extensive parts of their sales letter (with an appropriate backlink to their site) and point out where I believe they are lying or being deceitful within their sales letter, can they claim that I'm violating their copyright? When is fair use, fair use and when is it not?

Julia says:

Greetings and congratulations on an extremely useful site. I found it by reading about bOING-bOING's Ralph Lauren adventure.However, how do I get to the article on registering work – it's on the homepage in the upper left? I keep clicking it and it keeps taking me to this article on "5 Things That Can’t Be Copyrighted". Extremely interesting (astonished by the clothing design thing), but not interchangeable.Thank you and keep up the good fight.

That's an interesting article, I never thought NASA's images are not copyrighted and also the fashion design thing. Really nice one there. Thanks

You can read a bit more about Digimarc on this site by doing a search. This article is especially useful: http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/12/02/image…..

Laura says:

Thanks for the info. I have found lots of information on digital watermarking as well which may help or may not. You have to subscribe with the company that monitors your watermarking which may help get interested parties to purchase the art for use and tracks anyone trying to steal it in cyberspace.Company name is Digimarc. Ever heard of?

There's no need to do anything to copyright a work of art or a photo, you have copyright in the work once you have fixed it into a tangible medium of expression (paper or film in these cases). However, if you want to sue to enforce your rights, you should register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office.You can find more information on their site at copyright.gov

Laura says:

How do I copyright artwork or photography

David Sanger says:

For a comprehensive article on copyrighting recipes see "On The Legal Consequences Of Sauces: Should Thomas Keller’s Recipes Be Per Se Copyrightable?" by Christopher J. Buccafusco in Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, Issue 7pdf link

Jonathan, if I have a cookbook compiled by my mother, containing recipes and contributors' names, can I create a new edition of it? It was compiled in 1976. My mother died in 2002. Some of the contributors are notable public figures. Would I need to get their permission to use their recipes exactly as they originally appeared, and/or their names?

Thanks for the reply and clarification. Makes a lot more sense now.

David Sanger says:

How do I protect my recipe??A mere listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. Note that if you have secret ingredients to a recipe that you do not wish to be revealed, you should not submit your recipe for registration, because applications and deposit copies are public records. See FL 122, Recipes.

Copyright Office FAQ

Truthfully, this is an article unto itself but the short answer is yes, it would be included under that category. Recipes a process and those can not be protected under copyright.That being said, the images and descriptions can be very easily. So you can't just plagiarize from a cookbook either. Recipes exist in a gray area between idea and authorship where parts are not copyrightable and parts are.Still, the best way to look at it is that the facts are not copyrightable, the the create description, images, etc. are.

That would definitely be a trademark issue. If you want a quick overview of the difference between trademark, copyright and patent here's a pretty good rundown:http://www.lawmart.com/forms/difference.htmBasically, trademark protects business names and slogans from confusion in the marketplace where copyright protects works of authorship from being copied or used without permission.

It does make a lot of sense and in countries with crown copyright there have been some ugly issues about licensing, both terms and the effort needed to obtain one. The U.S. system, to me, seems much more logical and simpler. Also, as you pointed out with NASA, it can be much more rewarding and very beautiful at times.

cybele says:

Would recipes fall under "Works without Authorship/Facts?" I know that there's a great deal of chatter about this on a regular basis. The list of ingredients/proportions are not, but the descriptive passages on their compilation can be.

Very interesting. Some things I never considered.Looking at the recent Apple case that they won from a guy who registered domain names that infringed on their brand. Is that copyright or brand infringement. What's the difference.

Mrs. Micah says:

The NASA one was new to me, but it makes me happy. (I just hadn't thought about it before.) It makes sense, given that we taxpayers are already paying for those photos. I love what NASA's telescopes capture and while I haven't used them in any works I'll keep that in mind in case I want to.