Aug 10, Introduction The idea-expression dichotomy was formulated to ensure that the manifestation of an idea i. The doctrine has been widely used in the United States and is not really alien to Indian jurisprudence.
Introduction There is hardly a single principle of copyright law that is more basic or more often repeated than the so-called idea-expression dichotomy.
This principle, sometimes described as having constitutional origins, was developed by the common law, and has now been incorporated into the copyright act itself.
Perhaps this should not be surprising, since the doctrine is so general in its statement as to defy particular application. Thus, if the outcome in a particular case is to be infringement, the work is deemed to be protectable expression; if the outcome is to be noninfringment, then the work is described as an "idea.
Although it is impossible to state precisely when a particular work has crossed the threshold from one end to the other, the courts are nonetheless supposed to struggle to apply the terms. These terms may not be precise, but they are no more imprecise than general concepts of negligence or fault, which the courts must also Idea expression dichotomy with on a case-by-case basis.
If the characterization, the abstraction, or the continuum is too vague to determine particular cases, however, then this principle is not as important as it might first appear.
It is helpful to have a model that explains why certain decisions Idea expression dichotomy to be made, and why not all cases will be easy to decide. But if other factors are at work in the idea-expression cases, then those specific factors should be examined more closely rather than blindly repeating the principle as dogma.
Part II traces the history and development of the doctrine; Part III analyzes and criticizes the doctrine; Part IV discusses the constitutional considerations involved in the doctrine; and Part V analyzes the relationship between the idea-expression dichotomy and other basic principles of copyright law.
History and Development Some of the early copyright cases, from which the idea-expression dichotomy developed, purported to establish a true dichotomy between the idea and the expression of a copyrighted work. Copyright in the early days protected only against literal copying, and not against a more abstract taking of a copyrighted work.
Judge Learned Hand explained the idea-expression dichotomy by means of a less precise "abstractions" test. The abstractions test was significant because copyrighted works were given protection on some level of abstraction, although that protection did not extend to the greatest level of abstraction.
Some recent computer copyright cases have expanded the scope of the idea-expression dichotomy even further, indicating a tolerance for protection of copyrighted computer programs at such an abstract level that one might wonder whether there is any vitality left in the idea-expression dichotomy at all.
Even if the reasoning in Baker may be attributed to a faulty or rejected reading of the law, the case has never been overruled; in fact, it has been so enthusiastically incorporated into the fabric of copyright law as perhaps to render its origins irrelevant.
A careful analysis of the case, however, sheds light upon the role of the doctrine, and perhaps imposes upon those advocating the doctrine the burden of finding a more contemporary justification for its existence.
In Baker, Selden [FN14] obtained a copyright in a book which disclosed his particular bookkeeping system. The Use Test The Court distinguished between the use of a work and the statement or explanation of it, implying that infringement depended upon the purpose for which a copy is made.
The Merger Theory The Court in Baker invoked a merger theory by focusing upon the utilitarian or practical nature of the original work.
The Court concluded that "where the art it teaches cannot be used without employing the methods and diagrams used to illustrate the book, or such as are similar to them, such methods and diagrams are to be considered as necessary incidents to the art, and given therewith to the public.
Thus, the Baker holding need not be viewed as one that would apply to the broader category of works that are capable of more than one type of expression. The merger theory has also been criticized. Professor Nimmer, for example, has argued that "it is factually erroneous to conclude that there is any system or method which can be performed by the use of only one particular form of written expression.
The Categorical Approach By invoking a categorical approach, the Supreme Court in Baker concluded that "blank account books are not the subject of [p. On an analytical level, this conclusion must be drawn from some broader principles such as the idea-expression, "works of utility," or merger principles.
The explanation uses an ad hoc approach, however, so that categories of works other than blank account books are not necessarily affected. Another valid reason for finding that blank forms are not copyrightable is that they do not reflect sufficient originality to constitute copyrightable material.
The Exclusive Rights Test The Supreme Court stated that the copyright in the book, although effective to protect the book, "did not confer upon [the author] the exclusive right to make and use account-books, ruled and arranged as designated by [the author] and described and illustrated in said book.
According to Professor Nimmer, this limited explanation is the true holding of Baker, with the other explanations representing expansions by later courts.
Stone, [FN38] which held that daily price quotes were not copyrightable. Although there have been recurring reminders of the begrudging approach exemplified in Clayton, it has been established that newspaper articles and price-quotes are not per se excluded from copyrightability, at least not on the ground that they are "temporal" or merely the result of "industry" rather than "learning.
Woodward, [FN44] which held that a claim to copyright in a catalogue of furniture sold by the plaintiff was not valid. Junior Army and Navy Stores. Donaldson Lithographing Company, [FN48] in which Justice Holmes, writing in a deceptively offhanded manner, dismissed the argument that advertisements were not sufficiently part of the "useful arts" to qualify for copyright protection.
Wisden, [FN50] an English case, which held that a cricket-scoring sheet was not a fit subject for copyright. Although the English court did make some statements which might imply that cricket-scoring sheets are generally ineligible for copyright, [FN51] the case actually was decided on the particular [p.CHAPTER ONE Ethnic Nationalism and Civic Nationalism.
The discrimination between civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism is common in writings on nationalism and nations, whether it be as the civic-ethnic division, the political-cultural, or the Western-Eastern division.
Therefore the idea expression dichotomy lives upto its name of being the central axiom of copyright law in determining what is copyrightable. The limitation that has been imposed by law on copyrightable materials is copyrightability of ideas.
The idea-expression dichotomy means that infringement of copyright will not occur for works that have a basis on the same ideas in its creation if the way in which the work is expressed, has not been copied. The idea–expression divide or idea–expression dichotomy limits the scope of copyright protection by differentiating an idea from the expression or manifestation of that idea.
Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology Vol. 3, Issue 2 () THE IDEA - EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY: INDIANIZING AN INTERNATIONAL DEBATE∗. To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work.
This principle, known as the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy, applies to all works of authorship This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate.