World

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT OP-ED

No laughing matter: When comedians steal jokes, the punch line can be brutal

No laughing matter: When comedians steal jokes, the punch line can be brutal
(Photo: Unsplash / Michel Grolet)

American TV host and comedian Conan O’Brien was sued for copyright infringement for stealing one-line jokes from the blog and Twitter account of another comedian. This really was no laughing matter – the aggrieved comedian claimed damages in the sum of $600,000.

Heard the one about the comedian who “stole” a joke? I don’t suppose you regularly visit Chortle, a site that’s seemingly aimed at British comedians. So you probably haven’t heard the story about the famous TV host and comedian who was sued for copyright infringement.

According to an article by former lecturer and stand-up comedian Ollie Horn, the TV host and comedian Conan O’Brien was sued for copyright infringement for stealing one-line jokes from the blog and Twitter account of another comedian. 

This really was no laughing matter – the aggrieved comedian claimed damages in the sum of $600,000. O’Brien’s defence was an interesting one – one that’s described in the posting as “parallel thinking” as opposed to copying. But although O’Brien denied that he had copied the jokes, he chose to settle out of court. He also issued this short statement: “Short of murder, stealing material is the worst thing any comic can be accused of.”

This story does provide us with a good excuse to look at some of the basics of copyright law.

It’s important to understand that copyright can exist in a range of things; the law refers to them as “works”, including literary works, musical works, artistic works, films, sound recordings, broadcasts and computer programs. These tend to cover all of the bases – as an example, the joke which forms the subject of the litigation is considered a type of literary work, a category that is defined in South African law to include both “stories” and “dramatic works”. 

A good follow-up question may be whether a joke has to be any good in order to enjoy copyright? The answer’s no – the law simply requires a work to be original. This may sound like a high bar, but in fact it isn’t. For the purposes of copyright law, the word “original” simply means that the work must not have been copied from another source – some quaint old-fashioned expressions are sometimes used here: one goes along the lines of the work must be the “fruit of the author’s labours”, another is that the work must be the “sweat of the author’s brow”. This test is distinct from, for instance, the “novelty” requirement under patent law, which can be a high hurdle to clear.

So merit or quality is not a requirement for copyright to exist. A really poor joke that is original and not copied will pass muster. But how do you assess originality?

A South African court considered the issue in the case of Waylite. The court said that the work “must have a quality of individuality not necessarily requiring intellectual novelty or innovation, but which is at least sufficient to distinguish the work from the merely commonplace. It must be apparent from the work itself that the author has made such a contribution. The standard required is not high and it is not capable of precise definition. It is a matter for judgment according to the facts of a particular case.”

Incidentally, in the Chortle article the author raises the issue of whether a two-word Jimmy Carr joke would pass muster – in other words, whether it involved sufficient labour. The joke: “Dwarf shortage.” There has even been debate, and I use the word in its loosest sense, whether single words may qualify for copyright. The example used: “Jabberwocky” of CS Lewis fame.

A further requirement for copyright protection is that the work must exist in a material form. This means that the work must be written down, recorded or otherwise reduced to a material form – in the old days, this typically meant a book or publication, but these days a tweet or blog post are entirely sufficient. This general concept is often expressed as follows: “there is no copyright in ideas” – a completely separate rabbit hole to go down.

Central to copyright is copyright ownership. The first owner of the copyright is the creator or author of the work. Various important exceptions exist and these relate to works intended for publication, works that have been commissioned, computer programs, works created within an employment situation and the like.

A work of copyright will be infringed when an unauthorised person carries out a restricted act, such as to reproduce the work in any manner or form, perform the work in public, or make an adaptation of the work. In order to constitute infringement there must be copying of a substantial part of the work which is typically a qualitative rather than a quantitative investigation.

The rights we’ve discussed so far are sometimes described as “economic rights”. There is a further sub-category of rights in play when discussing copyright, referred to as “moral rights”. These rights include, for instance: the right of paternity, in other words the right of an author to demand that his authorship is acknowledged; and the right of integrity, which is the right of an author to object to any distortions, mutilations or modifications which are prejudicial to their honour.

Moral rights are yet another rabbit hole that perhaps merit a separate article.

While the crux of this article is, well, a joke, copyright is a very serious matter and in our practice we find that some of the most misunderstood IP drivers in transactional matters relate to copyright, its ownership and its exploitation. This is particularly true for transactions relating to software or similar tech developments.

This misunderstanding can have significant commercial impact on transactions of this nature. DM 

André J Maré is an executive in the Intellectual Property Department at law firm ENSafrica.

[hearken id=”daily-maverick/8835″]

Gallery

Comments - Please in order to comment.

  • Leonard Stoch says:

    I think I understand – for copyright to stand, it appears that the “work” does not need to be copyright registered per se. It merely needs to have been recorded publicly in written form.

    What about a graphic design that, for example, lays out how to do something in order to achieve a desired result. My understanding is that this has to either be patented as an algorithm, or registered very meticulously as a work of art.

    Am I correct? Is this because the latter does not comprise “words” as in a joke or a story?

    Why does a design have to be registered, with the associated effort and costs, while the copying thereof should be fairly simple to establish/prove/demonstrate in a court of law?

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted

X

This article is free to read.

Sign up for free or sign in to continue reading.

Unlike our competitors, we don’t force you to pay to read the news but we do need your email address to make your experience better.


Nearly there! Create a password to finish signing up with us:

Please enter your password or get a sign in link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for signing up.

We would like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick...

…but we are not going to force you to. Over 10 million users come to us each month for the news. We have not put it behind a paywall because the truth should not be a luxury.

Instead we ask our readers who can afford to contribute, even a small amount each month, to do so.

If you appreciate it and want to see us keep going then please consider contributing whatever you can.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Become a Maverick Insider

This could have been a paywall

On another site this would have been a paywall. Maverick Insider keeps our content free for all.

Become an Insider

Every seed of hope will one day sprout.

South African citizens throughout the country are standing up for our human rights. Stay informed, connected and inspired by our weekly FREE Maverick Citizen newsletter.