Originally Posted by teh603
I'm a little worried about what the Faulkner estate could do to academia if it wins. Imagine a world without direct quotations.
I'm not sure I want to.
The odds of them winning are pretty close to zero. To quote the US Copyright Office (you know, the people who are in charge of this stuff):
"Copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright. The Copyright Office cannot register claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words such as:
• Catchwords, catchphrases, mottoes, slogans, or short advertising expressions"
They're betting on one or more of their victims making a payout of less than the legal fees for a trial. One never knows what a movie studio will do, since they have a vested interest in promoting the misinformation that ideas can be copyrighted, but the Washington Post does not, and likely has plenty of money for lawyers (if not lawyers on staff).
I'm thinking this will just go quietly away, and we'll never hear about it.