Idea–expression distinction
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
The idea–expression distinction or idea–expression dichotomy is a legal doctrine in the United States that limits the scope of copyright protection by differentiating an idea from the expression or manifestation of that idea.
Unlike
Legal origins and status
Philosophically, there is disagreement about the distinction between thought and language. In the past it was often thought that the two could not be separated, and so a paraphrase could never exactly reproduce a thought expressed in different words. At the opposite extreme is the view that concepts and language are completely independent, so there is always a range of ways in which a concept can be expressed.[1]
In the United States, the doctrine originated from the 1879
In the English decision of
Today, Article 1.2 of the European Union Software Directive expressly excludes from copyright ideas and principles that underlie any element of a computer program, including those that underlie its interfaces.[5][6] As stated by the European Court of Justice in SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd., "to accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolize ideas, to the detriment of technological progress and industrial development."[7]
Scènes à faire
Some courts have recognized that particular ideas can be expressed effectively only by using certain elements or background. There are certain archetypal characters and even types of scenes that are frequently used by authors, due to both necessity to conform to genre conventions or even because the intended audience expects such archetypes.[8] The French name for the doctrine that protects the use of these archetypes is called Scènes à faire.[9] Therefore, even the expression in these circumstances is unprotected, or extremely limited to verbatim copying only. This is true in the United Kingdom and most Commonwealth countries.[10]: 54–56
The term "Scenes a faire" means "obligatory scene", a scene in a play that the audience "has been permitted to foresee and to desire from the progress of the action; and such a scene can never be omitted without a consequent dissatisfaction." The term was applied to copyright law in
In the
Merger doctrine
A broader but related concept is the merger doctrine. Some ideas can be expressed intelligibly only in one or a limited number of ways. The rules of a game provide an example.[17] For example, in Morrisey v. Proctor & Gamble 379 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1967), a set of rules for sweepstakes based on entrants' social security numbers was not copyrightable because there were only a limited number of ways to express the underlying idea of the sweepstakes instructions. In such cases the expression merges with the idea and is therefore not protected.[18]
There are cases where there is very little choice about how to express some fact or idea, so a copy or close paraphrase may be unavoidable. In this case, the "merger doctrine" comes into play. The fact or idea and the expression are seen as merged, and the expression cannot be protected. The merger doctrine is typically applied only to factual information or scientific theories, not to imaginative works such as plays or novels where the author has a much broader choice of expression.[19] The merger doctrine has been applied to the user interface design of computer software, where similarity between icons used by two different programs is acceptable if only a very limited number of icons would be recognizable by users, such as an image looking like a page to represent a document.[20] However, in 1994 a U.K. judge in Ibcos Computers v. Barclays Mercantile Finance cast doubt on the merger doctrine, saying he was not comfortable with the idea that "if there is only one way of expressing an idea that way is not the subject of copyright."[21]
See also
- Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service
- Ho v. Taflove
- Functionality doctrine
- Stock character
Notes
- ISBN 978-0-521-19343-6. Retrieved June 19, 2012.
- ^ 101 U.S. 99 (1879)
- ^ Mazer v. Stein 347 U.S. 201, 217 (1954)
- (1985)
- ^ quoted in Mylly, Ulla=Maija. "Harmonizing Copyright Rules for Computer Program Interface Protection" (PDF). Louisville, Kentucky: University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law. p. 14. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 5, 2010.
- ^ "Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs". Official Journal of the European Union.
- ^ "EUR-Lex - 62010CJ0406 - EN - EUR-Lex". eur-lex.europa.eu. Retrieved February 2, 2019.
- ^ Said, Zahr K. (2023). "Grounding the Scènes à Faire Doctrine". Houston Law Review. 61: 350.
- ^ Said, Zahr K. (2023). "Grounding the Scènes à Faire Doctrine". Houston Law Review. 61: 351.
- ISBN 978-1-84113-087-3.
- ^ Lai 2000, p. 52.
- ^ Lai 2000, p. 54.
- ^ Lai 2000, p. 53.
- ISBN 978-0-9550628-3-4. Retrieved June 19, 2012.
- ^ Lai 2000, p. 59.
- ^ Samuels, Edward (Winter 1989). "THE IDEA-EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY IN COPYRIGHT LAW". Tennessee Law Review. 56: 384 – via LexisNexis.
- ^ Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1967).
- ^ Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc., 862 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1988).
- ISBN 978-1-4133-1617-9. Retrieved June 19, 2012.
- ^ Lai 2000, p. 47.
- ^ Lai 2000, p. 45.
- ^ a b Lydia Pallas Loren & R. Anthony Reese, Proving Infringement: Burdens of Proof in Copyright Infringement Litigation, 23:2 Lewis & Clark Law Review 621, 661-65 (2019).
- ^ Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068, 1082 (9th Cir. 2000).