Introduction
The idea-expression dichotomy states that expression is protectable, not the mere idea. The idea is considered universal, and hence, only the idea cannot be protected. However, when the idea is accompanied by action (towards implementing that idea), it becomes an expression and thus can be protected, illustrating the idea-expression dichotomy.
The idea-expression dichotomy is one of the most time-tested doctrines of copyright law. It entails the drawbacks of functional claims over copyrighted works. It limits the range of copyright protection through a differentiation between an idea and the expression of that idea. This essential principle, which courts invoke heavily while establishing what is protected in copyright infringement cases, means that copyright only protects the author’s particular expression of an idea and never the idea itself.
The principle basically states that the explicit and exclusive rights to copyright were confined to the “mode of expression”, not merely the underlying idea, no matter how fundamental they are. It is an essential aspect of copyright law; that is, copyright can be sought in the way a unique idea is expressed, not only for the originality of the idea.
An idea is abstract and can be common to everyone. Thus, it becomes essential to distinguish between ideas and expression. An idea is the formulation of thought on a particular subject, whereas an expression constitutes the implementation of the said idea. So basically, even if a number of people come up with a similar idea, protection shall only be given to the one who has implemented the idea in some form of expression. Such expression must be explicit, with a particular preparation of words, designs, or other forms.
Thus, this doctrine is utilized to protect multiple forms of the same idea. Till now, courts across every jurisdiction have been unable to develop a formula that can adequately differentiate between idea and expression. This is primarily because sometimes there exists a very thin line between the two concepts, and thus, every case varies accordingly.
The main reason for granting protection to expressions and not ideas is to protect the free flow of ideas. The copyrighting of ideas would bring creativity and innovation to a standstill. It is for this reason that the freedom to copy or get inspired from ideas is central to the structure of the copyright laws. Accordingly, an idea that does not appear in a specific, unique arrangement of words, designs, or other forms cannot be protected under copyright laws.
This long-standing principle of copyright law is confirmed by agreement on aspects related to trade related to intellectual property rights (Trips), Article 9 (2):
“Copyright protection will extend to manifestations, processes, processes, methods of operation or manifestations in the form of mathematical concepts.”
Origin of Idea-Expression Dichotomy
The origin of the idea-expression dichotomy can be traced back to the early cases related to copyright law. One of the most significant cases in the United States that helped establish the said principle was Baker vs Seldon (1879).
Baker vs Seldon (101 U.S. 99 (1879))
In this case, the Supreme Court held that though the expression of a particular idea, like in this case (a bookkeeping system), could be copyrighted, the original idea that gave birth to that expression cannot be copyrighted. It emphasized that copyright protection doesn’t extend to ideas or methods but to the way in which these ideas are expressed.
This principle in India has its roots in the broader principles of copyright law. A landmark case that shaped this concept in India is R.G. Anand vs Delux Films & Ors. (1978). It stated that different expressions of similar ideas could coexist without infringing on each other’s rights. Apart from this landmark ruling, the idea-expression dichotomy is also influenced by international copyright agreements like the TRIPS agreement. As mentioned above, Article 9(2) of TRIPs reiterates that ideas are not protectable under copyright laws, further solidifying this principle in the Indian legal context.
Defining the term ‘idea’
The human brain shapes ideas from discussions, debates, and arguments, which are described as human mental conceptions, formations or representations, i.e. depictions. ‘Idea’ refers to a general concept, theme or notion that is not fixed in a specific form. Some general dictionaries suggest that an idea is a conception of a mind or a thought which is a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity. Ideas basically constitute a wide range of abstract thoughts, principles, or plans that can inspire creative works, but they cannot be eligible for copyright protection.
If an idea were to be copyrighted along with its expression, no one else would be able to create their expressions based on that same idea, which would defeat the purpose of promoting creativity and rewarding innovation through copyright protection. It is also possible to refer to ideas as an external object, meaning an idea can be taken as something that was not implied by the author but rather concluded by the user’s mind.
Defining the term ‘expression’
The term “expression” is more straightforward than an “idea”. Many English dictionaries have defined “expression” as the act or an instance of expressing or setting forth in words a particular word, phrase, or form of words, or the manner or form in which a thing is expressed in words; wording; phrasing; or as the way an idea is transformed into words. The “expression” of an idea refers to the specific way in which that idea is articulated or represented. This includes the particular words, images, sounds, or other forms of creative output that convey the idea.
For this article, the definition of ‘expression’ refers to the ways in which the ideas and thoughts of the author are integrated so that these thoughts can be presented to the public at large. Generally, such expressions in the words of copyright law are music or dramatic work, fictional representation in computer programs, writing or speech, photographic work, fine arts work, etc.
Difference Between the term “Idea” and “Expression“
An idea is universal, meaning anyone can have an idea at any point in time, but the expression is unique in its own way. For example, anyone can think of something, but the way someone portrays it is different and, therefore, can be protected. This clearly defines the concept of idea-expression dichotomy.
The idea itself cannot be protected, as it would be very difficult for the law to regulate them. However, protection for such ideas can be easily regulated when they are expressed, as highlighted in the idea-expression dichotomy.
Ideas are broad concepts, and if protection were given to them, it would be very difficult to understand the infringements of such rights. On the other hand, it is easier in the case of expressions, and remedies are also available, making the idea-expression dichotomy crucial in copyright law.
Idea and Expression: Protection of Copyright in India
The act that governs copyright as a concept under Indian law is the Copyright Act of 1957. It basically deals with the rights of the owner of the copyright in respect of their artistic works, like how to reproduce the work by storing it in particular mediums, issue copies and so on. The Statute clearly states that an individual is not entitled to any form of copyright except as provided by this act or any other applicable law. Section 13 of the Act outlines the scope of copyright existence by specifying the types of copyright available, while Section 14 explains the definition of copyright.
The copyright law, however, does not define either an idea or expression and is also silent on the difference between the two concepts. From the judicial perspective as well, there has not been much development in the principle of idea-expression dichotomy due to a minimal number of case laws.
Case Laws
R.G. Anand vs. M/s. Delux Films AIR 1978 SC 1613
The plaintiff was a renowned playwright, and one of his famous plays is “Hum Hindustani,” which was written and enacted by him in Hindi. One day, one of the defendants approached the plaintiff, stating that they wanted to make a film based on that play and that they would need a copy of it. The plaintiff asked them to come to Delhi to discuss this further. The defendants came to Delhi, and the plaintiff read the entire play to them.
The defendants, however, did not provide any reassurance and went back. After a few days, the plaintiff learned that the defendants were making a film on his play, titled New Delhi. When the plaintiff inquired, the defendants told him that the movie was not based on his play. However, after the movie was released, it turned out that the movie was exactly based on the plaintiff’s play. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit, and an appeal was made to the apex court, where the idea-expression dichotomy was pivotal in deciding the case.
The main issue was whether the plaintiff’s copyright had been infringed in this case.
The apex court held that when the idea is the same and is projected in a different manner, similarities will occur. In such cases, the courts can examine whether the work is an exact imitation of the copyrighted work with slight variations. In such cases, copyright is violated. However, if the plot and objective are different, then copyright is not violated, as explained by the idea-expression dichotomy.
In the present case, although the theme of the work was the same, the defendant had executed and expressed it in a different manner. The apex court stated that the idea and plot themselves cannot be protected under copyright, but the manner in which they are presented is protected. The movie was broader in concept compared to the play, and therefore, the copyright was not violated, demonstrating the application of the idea-expression dichotomy.
Legal principle established
- Idea-expression dichotomy: The court reinforced that copyright does not protect ideas, only their specific manifestations.
- Adequate equality: The court emphasized that only similarities for copyright claims are insufficient; adequate copying of the material should be performed.
- Leman Observer Test: This test was introduced to determine whether an average viewer would see the film as a copy of the play. The court found that a prudent person would not see the film as a copy.
Anil Gupta vs Kunal Dasgupta
However, an exception to this was seen in 2002 in the case of Anil Gupta vs Kunal Dasgupta under the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff came up with the idea of a reality match-making television programme and approached the defendant. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had taken his idea and used it without permission, leading him to file a copyright infringement claim. In response, the defendant argued that copyright only protects the way an idea is expressed, not the idea itself.
The court agreed, stating that an idea alone cannot be copyrighted. However, it also ruled that if the concept in question is new and innovative, it can be eligible for copyright protection, even if it is fundamentally just an idea.
So, this basically elaborates on how the lack of a proper law on idea-expression dichotomy creates a problem for the Indian courts as they have to be very careful in making a distinction between an idea and from where its expression starts.
Tools to Segregate the Distinction Created by the Courts
Though initially, it seems like segregating ideas and expressions is an easy task, the reality is a little different. It’s essential to first establish whether the plaintiff’s entire work is protected under the Copyright Act. Additionally, we need to examine whether the part taken from the plaintiff’s original copyrighted work is genuine.
So, to segregate between the ideas and expression generally, the :
The Lay Observer Test
It is often taken into consideration by the courts to determine the similarities and differences. In this test, a regular person looks at and reads the works in question. Their observations and opinions about how similar the two works are serve as the primary basis for determining the extent of any infringement that may have occurred.
Test of Notion of Extraction
The Bombay High Court insisted on Shamoil Ahmed Khan vs Falguni Shah and also analyzed the concept of “extraction”, which is an incredible way to separate an idea from the expression. It has been observed that it is impossible to intimate an idea without expressing it in some form or the other. To determine what is responsible for safety under copyright law, the work of separating the expression from an idea will have to be done. Therefore, the case was introduced for the first time, making the case a foundation.
The test of Notion of Extraction was introduced for the very first time. This extraction test can be used to address the confusion between the idea and its expression in copyright infringement cases. In essence, the notion of extraction is about how much of someone else’s work can be used in a new creation and under what circumstances that use is acceptable or legal.
Exception to the Doctrine of Idea-Expression Dichotomy
The Doctrine of Merger
The fundamental rule of copyright law is that facts and ideas are not copyrighted; they are only creative and unique ways of expressing ideas and facts that are rewarded by law. However, in some situations where ideas and expression are inseparable or merged, the courts apply the principle of the merger. This principle states that when thoughts and expressions are naturally connected, and the expression is unmatched by thought, copyright cannot be provided.
Therefore, if the idea and expression are so well merged or fused that the idea itself becomes copyrightable, it would hamper the growth of creativity, which is against the main objective of copyright law. The principle of merger states that there is only one way to express some ideas, resulting in thoughts, and The expression often becomes indispensable; in such scenarios, the expression becomes non-copyrightable.
The Doctrine of Scenes of Faire
“Scenes a faire” is a term that refers to characters, places, story elements, language, etc., which are standard to some general theme or topic and are often an indispensable part of that theme or topic. Such scenes are not capable of being protected by copyright laws. However, the application and expression of these elements in any given story would be protectable depending on the situation.
This doctrine first came into the picture in the famous US case of Cain v. Universal Pictures Co, wherein Judge Leon Yankwich, while passing the order in favour of the defendants, admitted that the scene from the plaintiff’s book and the defendant’s movie were similar yet it cannot be regarded as a copyright infringement. This is because here, the judge stated that the idea of a couple taking shelter from a storm in a church was a regular scene and could not be made a subject matter of copyright protection.
Conclusion
The Indian courts have to see where they must draw a line between an idea and its expression. The idea expression is just an illusion; in fact, it distinguishes, practically speaking, just an idea out of its expression. Reality has nothing to do with it and is more akin to only the “expression” section of the phrase.
This doctrine, while useful in some ways, still does not explain and hence leaves the crucial necessity of another manner, where the points are more clear and less perplexed, for the determination of copyright infringement cases. An idea which is without any expression is merely a figment of one’s imagination, and such a thing does not have the necessary substance to be a real thing.
Indian courts have been successful in safeguarding the unprotected part of an already expressed idea, as discussed in the Shamoil Ahmed case and previously mentioned in the article. But, since we now live in the Age of Technology, we cannot afford to overlook the rights of the creators of the unexpressed concepts, which must be given the proper protection.
Just like in the case of computer software piracy, which has become the most anonymous vice in the case of India’s major recording houses, the illegal streaming of music and unauthorized downloads are causing significant damage to the big recording houses, while there is no guarantee the ideas are not being stolen and misused by other people from the original creators.
Know more about Subject Matter of Copyright
Know more about Rights under copyright
Know more about Ownership and Authorship of Copyright
Know more about Term of Copyright
Know more about Assignment and Licensing under Copyright
Know more about Copyright Infringement and Remedies
