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.

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

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.

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

give me a break

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!

leslie, Grad. Student, at 10:05 am EST on February 25, 2008

Does the writer want to ask for a “do over"?

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.

Concerned and discerning citizen, Lecturer on Civil Society, at 10:10 am EST on February 25, 2008

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.

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

Branding

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.

F Capobianco, at 12:50 pm EST on February 25, 2008

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.

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

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.

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