Comments on Does Clinton Have Copyright Problem?

• Posted by Stephen Downes on February 25, 2008 at 7:45am EST

• Having a trademark on a phrase doesn't entitle someone to ownership of every possible use of the phrase. Otherwise we would not be able to have even the most casual conversation, as just about every common phrase has ben trademarked by someone.

  Unless somebody could make a convincing case that the University of Richmond is running for president (or that Clinton is offering nonpartisan social programs) there is little, if any, overlap between the two uses.

  Certainly, one could not argue that the use of the phrase 'solutions for America' is any sort of plagiarism. One may as well then argue that the use of the English language is copying various institutions that also use the English language.

  At some point, we have to admit that, when we use a vocabulary of words in common, our uses will overlap. Good thing, too - communication would be impossible otherwise.

• Posted by Perry on February 25, 2008 at 9:05am EST

• Titles cannot be copyrighted. (A trademark is different than a copyright.) Joyce Carol Oates named one of her bestselling books using a verbatim line from a Stephen Crane poem. Are people at this website trying to rehabilitate Obama by attacking Clinton? Why have partisan politics seeped into a website about higher education?

• Posted by Paul on February 25, 2008 at 10:05am EST

• I don't think we are being partisan, but as an Obama supporter I find it amazing that a few lines from a speech by Obama are chided across the media and brought up in debates, but all the stolen lines and phrases that Clinton uses aren't. I'm not saying that what Obama did was correct, but I am saying that we should be held to the same level of scrutiny. The media should play up Hillary's blatant stealing of lines from President Clinton and John Edwards in last week's debates, as well as this, just to show people that both candidates have the same issues facing them.

• Posted by N.C. on February 25, 2008 at 10:05am EST

• The replies to this article appear to be taking on the merits of the case, rather than the underlying point, which is that a person who makes charges against another person for plagiarism, raises issues about her own words as well - and makes her own behavior subject to scrutiny on that topic.
  (A little like casting the first stone.)

• give me a break
• Posted by leslie , Grad. Student on February 25, 2008 at 10:05am EST

• I agree with the previous comment. Let it go and let Clinton do her job. I would hope that this news outlet is not as biased as the ones which bombard us all day!

• Posted by Peter on February 25, 2008 at 10:10am EST

• How many ways can one article be misconceived? Writers and publishers should know the basics of intellectual property, including that short phrases can't be copyrighted. The copyright notice on the Richmond page clear applies to the design and expressive content on the entire page and not to their trademark slogan.

  The article should be entitled "Does Clinton have Trademark Problems?" At that point, you can get into a discussion of what constitutes a fair use of a trademark - and how the Clinton campaign most likely has nothing to worry about.

• Does the writer want to ask for a "do over"?
• Posted by Concerned and discerning citizen , Lecturer on Civil Society on February 25, 2008 at 10:10am EST

• Thank you for this completely inane and facetous article.

  It is a good thing that this is a higher education website because in the real world inability to recognize basic copyright and trademark concepts and issues -- much less distinguish between them, as the previous correspondent Perry has so ably done, can mean bankruptcy.

  It was obviously a slow news day. This article is evidence of an extreme lack of reporting on issues. This election cycle seems even worse than the last.

  With so many real issues crying for attention, SHAME on IHE for this article. It only serves to undercut the credibility of your website.

• What?!
• Posted by R.F. on February 25, 2008 at 10:10am EST

• Hillary's campaign is not referring to the Richmond based program. Hello IHE, this is a poor excuse for a story.

• Posted by Sue Donna Moss on February 25, 2008 at 11:10am EST

• It's ironic that there's a copyright question about two organizations using the same trite slogan incorporating the word "solutions" when copyright isn't a solution to anything these days, but merely enables a continued corporate lockdown on our culture.

• There ARE Trademark Issues Here
• Posted by ALP on February 25, 2008 at 11:10am EST

• I disagree with those saying this is not an issue or that it is simply partisan finger-pointing.

  As a PR person, I'm certain that Richmond has a great interest in protecting their "Solutions for America" (SFA) brand, which is trademarked according to the story. The problem is that, for Richmond, SFA is a phrase connected to their program. They want people who hear about their program -- patrons, donors, volunteers, the public -- to think, "This program creates solutions for America." And when audiences think of trying to find solutions for America, Richmond wants them to thinko of their program. This is what branding is all about.

  If Hillary has claimed the phrase as a brand for her own campaign -- which includes programs similar to those executed by Richmond -- then there will be brand confusion. Most noteably, Richmond is in danger of people seeing their tag line and supposing that the Richmond program is in some way affiliated with Hillary, a Hillary program, or Democratic programs. For a non-political service entity, this can negatively affect both their participation rates and donor relations.

  It would be up to a court to decide how much overlap in use there really is between Hillary's SFA and Richmond's SFA, but if I were working at Richmond, I would be seriously concerned.

• Branding
• Posted by F Capobianco on February 25, 2008 at 12:50pm EST

• I completely agree with ALP who points out and rightly so for the need of serious copyright concern. The prominence of branding in higher education is undeniable otherwise, why is there so much fuss every time US News and World Report publishes it rankings. Perhaps the use of U of R's copyrighted slogan by Clinton might have been written off as old fashion political hypocrisy, however the press coverage Clinton's strategists I am sure anticipated has placed the issue in a different class, a lower quartile, that demands some appropriate and instant solution.

• Give Me a Break
• Posted by DJH , Assistant Dean at Bentley on February 25, 2008 at 12:50pm EST

• Is that okay to say, or should I consult an attorney to research the rights of the previous poster who used wrote it? enough with the sniping.

• Posted by Jonathan Dresner on February 25, 2008 at 2:00pm EST

• I think there's a fundamental problem here which is becoming, not surprisingly, impossible to work around. Trademark and copyright have become very powerful rights, valuable and well-protected in law. But they've also become massively abusive, in that they cover broad swaths of common language, forcing people to absurdly creative locutions to get a point across legally.

• Missing the point
• Posted by Befuddled on February 25, 2008 at 3:35pm EST

• The point isn't that Clinton may be using Copyrighted/Trademarked phrases. My read on the article is that it's mocking the "newsworthiness" of Clinton's earlier claim.

  Obama stole from someone else's speech. So what?!?! I'm sorry, but that's going to be hard to avoid in this day and age given the number of long-winded, hot-air producing politicians. How many different ways can you express an idea without repeating someone else's verbiage?

  The "news" about Obama wasn't news to begin with. I don't care about or support either candidate currently, but I had to laugh when the media made this out to be a story. If I were an editor I would have laughed at the idea and said, "Next."

• Posted by jamison , The woods are burning! on February 25, 2008 at 3:35pm EST

• I'm sure it took a committee several months of revision after revision to come up with this banal phrase. I'm not clear what the phrase is supposed to be. Is it the name of some program? Is it a mere description? Is it a 'slogan'? A phrase ('Just do it!') can be copyrighted for advertising purposes (of course it already is) but if Clinton were to exhort her followers to just do it! Big Shoe Company would have no recourse. Nobody anywhere can copyright ordinary language outside of contexts like the one just mentioned.

  The expression itself is so gaseous and non-specific that it signifies nothing in any case.