Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won |
|
Idea-Expression Dichotomy |
Some people, and far too many corporate lawyers, think a copyright gives them the rights to the idea rather than the expression of that idea. We have several in
The Tabberone Trademark and Copyright Abusers' Hall of Shame. Congress is of no help in the matter. Instead of trying to follow the European
copyright model, the United States should be telling Europe to follow our examples.
The Copyright Act expressly sets forth that copyright protection does not extend to "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery." This rule, the idea-expression dichotomy, means that ideas, as opposed to expression, are not copyrightable. If an idea were copyrightable then there would be only one detective, Sherlock Holms, one super hero, Superman, and one cartoon character that was a duck, Donald Duck (say goodbye to Daffy Duck). It is the expression of the idea that can be copyrighted, such as Sherlock Holms, Sam Spade and Dick Tracy. If an idea for a product is original it could qualify for a patent but not a copyright. from Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 US 539 - Supreme Court 1985: |
The Second Circuit noted, correctly, 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." 723 F. 2d, at 203. No author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates. 17 U. S. C. § 102(b). See, e. g., New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713, 726, n. (1971) (BRENNAN, J., concurring) (Copyright laws are not restrictions on freedom of speech as copyright protects only form of expression and not the ideas expressed); 1 Nimmer § 1.10[B][2]. As this Court long ago observed: "[T]he news element — the information respecting current events contained in the literary production — is not the creation of the writer, but is a report of matters that ordinarily are publici juris; it is the history of the day." International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U. S. 215, 234 (1918). But copyright assures those who write and publish factual narratives such as "A Time to Heal" that [page 557] they may at least enjoy the right to market the original expression contained therein as just compensation for their investment. Cf. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U. S. 562, 575 (1977). |
From Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 US 186 - Supreme Court 2003: |
[page 219] As we said in Harper & Row, this "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." 471 U.S., at 556 (internal quotation marks omitted). Due to this distinction, every idea, theory, and fact in a copyrighted work becomes instantly available for public exploitation at the moment of publication. See Feist, 499 U.S., at 349-350. |
What the Supreme Court is saying is that as soon as an idea is expressed it is public domain. Corporate lawyers send cease and desist letters trying to intimidate people from the lawful use of ideas when the law plainly says otherwise. Why do these corporate lawyers do this? For the money. This is copyright abuse. Corporate lawyers who engage in this practice should be dis-barred. |
We have several designers in The Tabberone Trademark and Copyright Abusers' Hall of Shame who have, and are, falsely and
illegally claiming they own their ideas and they are interfering with legitimate sales that they claim are infringing. these are some of them:
|
General Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Corporate Lawyers |
Definitions |
Federal Court Cases Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations |
Federal Statutes Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22
|