If “out pizzaed” has no agreed meaning then any claim to doing this cannot be tested; if the Hut’s claim is not falsifiable then how can it be false? 
Talking about copyright traps on maps, I learned about this place not too long ago:
A mapmaker put this trap on an Esso road map. Someone happened to build a store at that spot. They found the name on the map and so it became the Agloe General Store. The county put it on their list of localities and Rand McNally got it from them. This all came out when the copyright owners sued Rand McNally. They were unsuccessful.
How does does this relate to news articles and photojournalism? They are ostensibly reporting facts. But I believe that newspapers copyright their stories and photos.
Same as anything else. The facts aren’t protected. The expression is protected.
(Except for the “hot news “ doctrine, whose viability is in question)
With respect to photographs, independent creation is also a factor. Two photographs of a news event might be identical but it’s only infringing if one was actually copied from the other. If two photographers happened to be in the same place at the same time neither one infringed the other.
Letters of the alphabet, typography, single words, names, short phrases, and slogans are not protected by copyright law. They’re not sufficiently creative.
Brand owners rely on trademark law, not copyright law.
Plagiarism and copyright are two different things. Plagiarism standards have to do with giving credit. Copyright has to do with copying.
These are kind of irrelevant points.
Copyright protections don’t cover lies, just as they don’t cover truths. However they might cover the expression of a lie.
Example: A few years back, there was a newspaper that ran an article about “spaghetti trees” in Italy, and how the harvest was particularly bad this year, and it might have an impact on the price of imported spaghetti in the US. It was false, of course, but it was also creative. If I published a copy of that article without permission, I’d be violating copyright. If, however, I just say that such-and-such town in Italy grows spaghetti on trees, I got that “fact” from the article, but I’m not violating copyright. It’s the expression of the fact that’s copyrighted, not the fact itself.
Yeah, I got my thoughts crossed. Plagiarism is all anyone can really complain about. The traps give one the clue someone is lifting stuff, but after that it is all a bit of waste of time.
If I had written the fact book I would make enough of a fuss that I got credit. It could only help sales of my book, so I would feel somewhat entitled to at least that.
Nitpick: it was a BBC news broadcast - and quite a few years back.
About 15 years ago the author(s) of Holy Blood, Holy Grail sued the publisher of The Da Vinci Code for copyright infringement in a UK court. The judge ruled that because Holy Blood was represented as History rather than fiction, the ideas in it were not protected by copyright.
And clearly a hoax because the spaghetti trees produced bumper crop that year.
Presumably someone could make a really huge pizza, large enough to surround a Pizza Hut restaurant, and then claim they have out pizzaed the hut 
.
LOL. I do wonder whether we’re into the advertising realm of “puffery” with that slogan anyway… the slogan cannot be false (for the purposes of false advertising) because no reasonable person would consider it to be true. (Nothing to do with copyright though.)
Ideas are never protected by copyright law. A copyright claim must be based on an allegation of copying expression. Copying expression, doesn’t always mean word-for-word copying, however.