I mean the term, not the content of the website.
I was wondering as there has been a book released called “The Straight Dope” about doping in sport.
I put the question here rather than in the Cafe Society as it is not about the literary merit of the book.
It’s my understanding that ‘the straight dope’ is a generic phrase to indicate that one is speaking truth rather than bulltish or inuendo.
IOW, saying, “I’ll give ya the straight dope on [something]” means you’ll explain or describe that thing without any fictional embellishment.
Oh yes, I recognise that has always been the case but I wondered if the Chicago Times or Creative Loafing had ever registered the name for copyright as I understand they did publish some books.
Nice to see you again 
Reckon it would be nigh on impossible to register such a phrase. It would be akin to the estate of Steve Irwin copyrighting BLIMEY as their personal property.
You too…how’s life wherever you are nowadays??
You wouldn’t be able to copyright the simple pre-existing phrase “The Straight Dope” - it’s not a sufficiently original work. You might be able to trademark it.
Which, looking at the logo, we can see that somebody has. There’s a wee ‘registered trademark’ logo between the P and E.
As others have said, you can’t “copyright” a simple word or phrase. You can register it as a trademark, which indeed they have. Trademarks cover a specific usage, so if another newspaper set up a similar column and called it The Straight Dope, then they would have a problem. Similarly, a book dealing with answers to common questions might not be able to use the title, but one on an unrelated subject should be fine.
It’s CRIKEY.
“Blimey” is Ron Weasley’s catchphrase.
You’re mixing up copyright law and trademark law.
Copyright law grants exclusive rights in an original and creative work of expression. It does not protect single words, short phrases, titles, names, or slogans.
Trademark law grants exclusive rights in a term, logo, or other distinctive symbol indicating the origin of goods or services—in other words a brand name. Trademark law also does not protect something that is only an author’s name or the title of a work. A commonly understood term can be a trademark so long as it is not being used for its literal meaning.
For example, “Star Wars” could not be a trademark for wars between stars (whatever that might be).
“Star Wars” also could not be a trademark if all it were was a title of a single movie.
Titles are not copyrightable. Zillions of books have had identical titles; some have even been put out at the very same time on similar subjects. There are books titled Star Wars, for that matter, about the Strategic Defense Initiative.
Indeed, The Straight Dope is trademarked, but its protection is limited to a couple ofspecific uses:
and
So, given that titles and author names have no protection, and the trademark Straight Dope is limited to the uses in the post above, I could bring out a book, The Straight Dope by Cecil Adams, and there would be no come-back?
Not that I have any plans to!
You mean it’s “registered.” Trademarks need not be registered. That’s a pitfall of using “trademark” (or “copyright”) as a verb. It leads to misunderstanding of the source of rights.
It might not be infringement of the “Straight Dope” trademark or copyright infringement but it certainly might be false designation of origin or unfair competition.
kunilou, your links expired.
I guess you’ll have to start hereand work your way through.
But really, the quoted material pretty much says it all.
Nope, expired. Pretty much have to start here. Have no clue how to find what you want to link.
I believe that the PTO’s trademark search system does not create permanent URLs. You have to start a new TESS session each time — http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4803:ullenn.1.1
Easiest way is to use the “Basic Word Mark Search (New User)” — Put Straight Dope in the search term box and select “the exact search phrase.”
That search gives you four results, only two of which are live:
and
No. The action against you wouldn’t be founded on breach of trademark it would be founded on “passing off”. You would be accused of deliberately passing off your book as being a work by Unca Cec to gain from his reputation. This probably wouldn’t be a problem if your book title happened to be the same as someone else’s. However where - as in your example - it is utterly implausible that the commonality is a mere coincidence and must rather be a deliberate ploy to deceive, you could be liable.