[Legal] Copyright Law in a Nutshell
Ladies and gentlemen,
For something a little bit different today:
Your dose of legality.
The idea-expression divide or idea-expression dichotomy is a concept which explains the appropriate function of copyright laws, which are generally designed to protect the fixed expression or manifestation of an idea rather than the fundamental idea itself. In Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 556 (1985), the Supreme Court stated that "copyright's idea/expression dichotomy 'strike[s] a definitional balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright Act by permitting free communication of facts while still protecting an author's expression.'" (internal citation omitted). Additionally, in Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217 (1954), the Supreme Court stated "Unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given only to the expression of the idea-not the idea itself."
- Reproduced from Wikipedia in accordance with the fair use doctrine.
See also The Idea-Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law
The basic premise is this:
No one may lay claim to the basic idea behind a piece of work. Ideas are a dime a dozen, easily conceived, and easily conceived independently. The 'sweat of the brow', to coin the terminology of the UK House of Lords, lies in the effort taken to express these ideas. As an immediate example, the 'idea' behind the idea/expression dichotomy was created by a judge somewhere somewhen, and has been put into words subsequently over and over again. However, each author phrases it differently, and each author is awarded copyright in their own work. Therefore, this piece of explanation is copyrightable. However, should anyone else attempt to explain the idea/expression dichotomy, even using the example that I have put forthwith, this does not constitute copyright infringement.
In addition, copyright infringement requires proof of copying. Independent creation, even of a work of exactly the same content and expression, does not violate copyright.
Copyright law stems from two sources -- the moral right of the author to lay claim to their works, as well as any economic benefit they may derive from it.
Neither of these rights are infringed when someone independently creates a work, however similar. The former is not infringed when the expression of a work is substantially dissimilar from an earlier, preceding work, and the law deems that any reduction in economic benefit is justifiable in the public interest of the encouragement of innovation and the creation of more works.
The third point is this:
Copyright law only protects expression which is committed to material form. To wit: writing, art (whether 2d or 3d), drama, or music. Therefore, intangible ideas, or even a poem written entirely in the mind, is not copyrightable. In addition, the copyright derives from the work in question, as a whole. There is no copyright in individual created words (with a few exceptions), nor is there copyright in turns of phrase, or 'a particular way of doing things'.
I find the law in this particular instance to be an apt representation of the conflicting interests in modern society. While we wish to encourage people to innovate, neither do we wish them to simply and blindly reproduce the ideas of others, and thereby gain from it. Moreover, we recognise a certain right the author has not to have their works taken and rebranded as others', or to be associated with undesirable influences.
At the same time, we do not wish to impose an unduly wide monopoly, thereby allowing an author to, by creating something, lay claim to everything similar. The difficulty lies in drawing where this line of 'similarity' ends. Clearly, if an author were to lay claim to all stories involving adventuring, this would bar all subsequent writers from doing the same, the fact that they may do it in radically different fashions not withstanding.
The idea/expression dichotomy is one way of drawing this distinction. While it becomes extremely strained in practice, it is an effective tool in simple, clear-cut cases. The second test used by the law is one of 'substantial similarity', one that is far more technical. However, the fact remains that all these tests are simply an elucidation of what we as a society feel is right: that the mere influence of one school of works on another is not copying; the independent creation of a work without recourse to the original is not copying, and where significant skill, labour and effort has been invested in creating a work that is very much different, the original author should not have recourse against the parts that simply appear to be similar.
This is meant for informative purposes only, and should not be relied on as actual legal advice. The author disclaims all responsibility stemming from any reliance on the above material, whether due to negligence or otherwise.
For something a little bit different today:
Your dose of legality.
The idea-expression divide or idea-expression dichotomy is a concept which explains the appropriate function of copyright laws, which are generally designed to protect the fixed expression or manifestation of an idea rather than the fundamental idea itself. In Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 556 (1985), the Supreme Court stated that "copyright's idea/expression dichotomy 'strike[s] a definitional balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright Act by permitting free communication of facts while still protecting an author's expression.'" (internal citation omitted). Additionally, in Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217 (1954), the Supreme Court stated "Unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given only to the expression of the idea-not the idea itself."
- Reproduced from Wikipedia in accordance with the fair use doctrine.
See also The Idea-Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law
The basic premise is this:
No one may lay claim to the basic idea behind a piece of work. Ideas are a dime a dozen, easily conceived, and easily conceived independently. The 'sweat of the brow', to coin the terminology of the UK House of Lords, lies in the effort taken to express these ideas. As an immediate example, the 'idea' behind the idea/expression dichotomy was created by a judge somewhere somewhen, and has been put into words subsequently over and over again. However, each author phrases it differently, and each author is awarded copyright in their own work. Therefore, this piece of explanation is copyrightable. However, should anyone else attempt to explain the idea/expression dichotomy, even using the example that I have put forthwith, this does not constitute copyright infringement.
In addition, copyright infringement requires proof of copying. Independent creation, even of a work of exactly the same content and expression, does not violate copyright.
Copyright law stems from two sources -- the moral right of the author to lay claim to their works, as well as any economic benefit they may derive from it.
Neither of these rights are infringed when someone independently creates a work, however similar. The former is not infringed when the expression of a work is substantially dissimilar from an earlier, preceding work, and the law deems that any reduction in economic benefit is justifiable in the public interest of the encouragement of innovation and the creation of more works.
The third point is this:
Copyright law only protects expression which is committed to material form. To wit: writing, art (whether 2d or 3d), drama, or music. Therefore, intangible ideas, or even a poem written entirely in the mind, is not copyrightable. In addition, the copyright derives from the work in question, as a whole. There is no copyright in individual created words (with a few exceptions), nor is there copyright in turns of phrase, or 'a particular way of doing things'.
I find the law in this particular instance to be an apt representation of the conflicting interests in modern society. While we wish to encourage people to innovate, neither do we wish them to simply and blindly reproduce the ideas of others, and thereby gain from it. Moreover, we recognise a certain right the author has not to have their works taken and rebranded as others', or to be associated with undesirable influences.
At the same time, we do not wish to impose an unduly wide monopoly, thereby allowing an author to, by creating something, lay claim to everything similar. The difficulty lies in drawing where this line of 'similarity' ends. Clearly, if an author were to lay claim to all stories involving adventuring, this would bar all subsequent writers from doing the same, the fact that they may do it in radically different fashions not withstanding.
The idea/expression dichotomy is one way of drawing this distinction. While it becomes extremely strained in practice, it is an effective tool in simple, clear-cut cases. The second test used by the law is one of 'substantial similarity', one that is far more technical. However, the fact remains that all these tests are simply an elucidation of what we as a society feel is right: that the mere influence of one school of works on another is not copying; the independent creation of a work without recourse to the original is not copying, and where significant skill, labour and effort has been invested in creating a work that is very much different, the original author should not have recourse against the parts that simply appear to be similar.
This is meant for informative purposes only, and should not be relied on as actual legal advice. The author disclaims all responsibility stemming from any reliance on the above material, whether due to negligence or otherwise.