Spot would know for sure, but I think Dave is right. Go onto iTunes or Rhapsody & look up "I Love You" or "Night & Day" or any other "general" titles and you'll see a lot of different songs with the same title.

Of course, it might be arguable that some titles SHOULD be copyrighted and NEVER used again...

The one I am thinking of (which I will not reveal because it is a work in progress) is general, but not as general as Night and day, or Twist and shout. So it is not obvious to me that it would fall in the uncopyrightable category - if one exists. On the other hand it's not so specific that it does not lend itself easily to another project.
Tor

From what I've observed from recent events in this industry, the answer would be "It depends".

A few years back, a friend of mine was running a mystery dinner theater production called "A Night in Casablanca". The folks from Turner saw an ad for the production, and eventually shut him down. The first thing they said was that he couldn't use a name with the word "Casablanca" in the title of his show.

Although his lawyer said that the use of the term "Casablanca" certainly could not be considered copyrighted, the threats from the Turner folks and mounting legal costs, finally did him in.

-Travis
Travis Voice & Narration Services
www.Announcing.biz

I believe the US Copyright Office requires a certain minimum length before something can be copyrightable (no, i don't recall what the length is). Very few titles would exceed this minimum length. If the title appears in the body of the work then it is copyrighted as part of the work, but only in the context of the work. Basically the US Copyright Office won't issue a copyright for something that isn't big enough to stand as a work on it's own. With very rare exceptions, a title all by itself will not evoke a specific reaction or capture an audience the way a complete work will.

This really is sensible as titles are often so short that we would quickly run out of available useful phrases if they couldn't be reused. You wouldn't want to force people to name their songs something like "Purple tiny cheese sand" simply because no other useful word combination was still available.

Of course, this is the US copyright system. I have no idea how other countries might vary.

"Purple tiny cheese sand." Jimi Hendricks right? :)

I have no idea what the law says, but I am almost certain that in practice, it would be impossible to enforce. The only exception is that if you intentionally try to benefit from the confusion between your title and one that already exists, you could get into trouble.

This is similar to doing business using your own name. No one can stop me from using my name (John Meyer) in my business, but if I went into the clothing business, where there is a John Meyer of Norwich, and attempted to steer that company's customers to my new company by trading on their name, then I would have a problem.

Back to the song titles. There are tens of thousands of duplicate song titles, so that also "proves" that if there is a copyright for titles, it is not enforced in practice.

This link is about coffee and going too far with copywrite infringement.

http://www.arvayfinlay.com/news/news-aug-29-2003.htm

I guess I don't understand the meaning of your post comment. Are you saying Starbucks took the infringement too seriously? Or saying the Haida tribal members are taking away from the Starbucks name?
Starbucks is a trademarked name, but Haida Bucks is two words, and even if not, it's a play on their tribal name.
Either way, it's a trademark case, not a copyright case. Totally unrelated.

Song titles indeed cannot be copyrighted. Two songs can contain the same title. Just try to record however, a song titled "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover" because the song title is also trademarked. Not all songs go this far, but it can be done.
AND, if the author of the song feels you are using his or her song title to promote or further your own efforts opens up a property rights lawsuit.
"Walk This Way" embues a sense of radical nature...and for instance could potentially be viewed as a culture-related song. Same with other mega-hits like "Bad to the Bone."
If they are viewed as socially identifiable (songs people quote, song titles referred to in pop-culture media) then indeed, a copyright case wouldn't come forth, but a property rights case would.
Could be a crapshoot. Depending on the song, one most authors probably wouldn't be willing to roll the dice on.

**Please remember, I'm not a lawyer. I just pay them lotsa money for a very expensive education.

"Understanding Copyrights" from VASST will help you answer some of these questions. (actually all of them, including the trademark comment)

If anyone has the right to use "Bucks" in that context, it is the Haida. Starbucks suffered ridicule not just from the few people living in the Queen Charlotte islands, but from everyone in B.C. who read or watched the news about this.

If any of these situations made it to court, the mega companies would be punished by a reasonable jury, I think.

There have been many many cases where people can't even use their own name because it is trademarked and the idea that it causes confusion is ludicrous.

Just my opinion.

This really getting very OT, but there have been many cases of this down here in the last few years, someone had a greasy spoon hamburger shop in an out of the way country town that'd been in business probably as long as I've been alive and it was called Burger King, now guess who won that one.
Everyone has the right to protect their property and everyone has their right to a fair hearing in court but in civil matters it's very hard to avoid the He Who Has the Most Money Wins scenario.
Bob.