True, the threshold for ‘copyrightability’ is low for literary (and other) works. A literary work must be original. It should not infringe another work’s copyright. It should be written or otherwise fixed in a tangible form. Writing it should generally involve some form of skill and labour being expended. And it need not contain an iota of merit.

That being said, there are some things which cannot be copyrighted. You cannot copyright a description of what you are. You cannot copyright a phrase used by the world plus dog. You are unlikely to be able to copyright the ordinary grocery list. You probably would not be able to copyright the text in a standard almanac or calendar. You may not be able to copyright the title of a book. And you definitely cannot copyright your name.

That, however, is exactly what a former legislator from South Dakota who was convicted in 2007 on four counts of second-degree rape has attempted to do.

Claiming that he seeks to prevent the use of his name without his consent, Ted Alvin Klaudt sent out a letter and an accompanying document labeled ‘Common Law Copyright Notice’ reserving a common-law copyright of a trade name or trademark for his name. It said no one could use his name without his consent and that anyone who did so would owe him $ 5,00,000, according to an article in the New York Times.

It would appear that Klaudt is trying to use his own rather confused version of copyright and trade mark law to ensure that he doesn’t get (? any more) bad press. However, apart from the fact that it has brought his name into the limelight in additional contexts, the fact is that the law would simply not support his claim.

For one thing, he would not be able to copyright his name. And as far as trade marks are concerned, they denote the origin of goods or services, and a name would not be a valid trade mark unless it was used in conjunction with one of the two. (Perhaps we’ll see Klaudt stationary in the market soon?)

However, even if a valid trade mark existed, Klaudt would still not be able to prevent others from using the his name for such purposes as reporting news under any law. While this is certainly an interesting way to try to prevent persons writing his name (and writing about him), it isn’t an approach which intellectual property law would support.