Islamic Law

Islamic Law

Basics of separating idea from expression

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Mahmoud Hekmatnia 1
Zeinab Shabani 2
1 Professor, Law and Islamic Jurisprudence Department, Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought, Tehran, Iran- Associate member of Faculty of law, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran.
2 MA. in Intellectual Property Law, Private Law Department, Faculty of Law, College of Farabi, University of Tehran, Qom, Iran.
Abstract
The use of the words "Expression", "Display" and "Creation" under the definition of "Work" in Article 1 of the Law on Protection of the Rights of Authors, Writers and Artists (1348) indicates a lack of protection for the ideas of works. As a result, the first condition of protection is that the idea must be externalized. The legal term representing this distinction between idea and expression of works is Idea-Expression Dichotomy. The Idea-Expression Dichotomy is the first and the most fundamental axiom of literary and artistic property law, which has been accepted as a fixed principle in all systems of protection of literary and artistic works. According to this principle the mere idea is not a subject of monopoly, and that protection is given only to the original and creative expression of that idea. Ideas are the building blocks of creativity and free public access to them should not be restricted by monopolizing them. However, separating idea from expression in practice has always been one of the biggest challenges for judges and experts in recognizing what is protected. The present article seeks to provide diagnostic guidelines for the courts and facilitate the judicial process of literary and artistic works infringement cases by using a descriptive-analytical method in examining judicial decisions and a comparative study of doctrines governing the recognition of ideas and expressions.
Keywords
Literary and Artistic Property
Idea-Expression Dichotomy
Merger Doctrine
Scè
nes à
faire Doctrine

Subjects

  1. انصاری، باقر؛ «شرایط اثر قابل حمایت در نظام مالکیت‌های ادبی و هنری (کپی‌رایت)»، مجله تحقیقات حقوقی؛ ش45، تابستان 1386، ص151ـ97.
  2. حکمت‌نیا، محمود؛ مبانی مالکیت فکری؛ چ2، تهران: سازمان انتشارات پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و اندیشه اسلامی، 1387.
  3. زرکلام، ستار؛ حقوق مالکیت ادبی و هنری؛ چ2، قم: نشر سمت، 1388.
  4. شبیری زنجانی, سیدحسن؛ «مطالعه تطبیقی چالش‌های حقوقی حمایت نظام فعلی کپی‌رایت از هنرهای معاصر با تأکید بر حقوق ایران و انگلستان»، الهیات هنر؛ ش4، بهار و تابستان 1395، ص1ـ17.
  5. کلمبه، کلود؛ اصول بنیادین حقوق مؤلف و حقوق مجاور در جهان؛ ترجمه علی‌رضا محمدزاده وادقانی؛ چ1، تهران: نشر میزان، 1385.
  6. محسنی، سعید و سیدمحمدمهدی قبولی درافشان؛ «بررسی حمایت حقوقی از ایده (مطالعه تطبیقی در نظام‌های حقوقی ایران و فرانسه)»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق خصوصی؛ ش1، بهار 1395، ص117ـ137.
  7. معینی، حامد و مریم‌السادات قادری؛ «دکترین ادغام و دکترین نمای اجباری در مالکیت ادبی ـ هنری»، فصلنامه حقوق پزشکی (ویژه‌نامه حقوق مالکیت فکری)؛ تابستان 1392، ص179ـ200.
  8. میرشمسی، محمدهادی، حسام جلائیان دهقانی و علیرضا تیموری؛ «ایده و حمایت از آن در حقوق مالکیت فکری»، حقوق اسلامی؛ ش40، بهار 1393، ص71ـ104.
  9. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. 545 F. Supp. 812, 823 (E. D. Pa. 1982), rev'd, 714 F. 2d 1240, 1253 (3d Cir. 1983).
  10. Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. 975 F. 2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
  11. Baker v. Selden, 101 U. S. 99 (U. S.: Supreme Court, 1879).
  12. Bauman v. Fussell [1978] R. p.C. 485 (U. K.: County Court & Court of Appeal, 1953).
  13. Beldiman, Dana; Functionality, Information Works, and Copyright; Yorkhill Law Publishing, 2008.
  14. Bently, Lionel, Brad Sherman; Intellectual Property Law; 4th Ed, Oxford University Press, 2014.
  15. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886).
  16. Bracha, Oren; Owning Ideas: The Intellectual Origins of American Intellectual Property; Cambridge University Press, 2016.
  17. Cain v. Universal Pictures Co., 47 F. Supp. 1013 (S. D. Cal. 1942).
  18. Chuck Blore & Don Richman, Inc. v. 20/20 Advertising, Inc., 674 F. Supp. 671, 677-78 (D. Minn. 1987).
  19. Colston, Catherina, Jonathan Galloway; Modern Intellectual Property Law; 3rd Ed, Routledge, 2010.
  20. Concrete Machinery Co. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments, 843 F. 2d 600, 606 (1st Cir.), aff'd, 867 F. 2d 606 (1st Cir. 1988).
  21. Copyright Office, Liberary of congress, Agustine Lillis, Mark, DeWolf, Richard C., Allen Howell, Herbert, Davis, Wilma S., Rudd, Benjamin W. ; Decisions of the United States Courts Involving Copyright and Literary Property 1789-1909; The Ohio State University (MORITZ LAW LIBRARY),1980.
  22. Deazley, Ronan; Copyright’s Public Domain, in Intellectual Property the Many Faces of the Public Domain; 2nd Ed, New York: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2007.
  23. Decorative Aides Corp. v. Staple Sewing Aides Corp. 497 F. Supp. 154, 156-67 (S. D. N. Y. 1980).
  24. Donoghue v. Allied Newspapers Ltd) 1938 (Ch. 106 (U. K.: High Court).
  25. Emerson v. Davies, 8 F. Cas. 615 (C. C. Mass. 1854) (No. 4,436).
  26. Fauset, Mathew. J. ; “What Do We Do With a Doctrine Like Merger? A Look at the Imminent Collision of the MCA and Idea/Expression Dichotomy”; Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 12 (1), 2008, pp. 131-153.
  27. Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F. 3d 644, 659 (7th Cir. 2004).
  28. Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., 9 F. 3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993).
  29. Goldstein, Paul; International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice; 3rd Ed, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
  30. Gorman, Robert A. ; Copyright Law; 2nd Ed, Federal Judicial Center, 2006.
  31. Groves, Peter; A Dictionary of Intellectual Property Law; Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011.
  32. Harper & Row, 723 F. 2d at 203; Gordon v. Weir, 111 F. Supp. 117, 122 (E. D. Mich. 1953), aff'd, 216 F. 2d 508 (6th Cir. 1954).
  33. Hebl, Andrew. D. ; “heavy burden: Proper application of copyright's merger and scenes fair doctrines”; Wake Forest Intellectual Property Law Journal, 8 (1), 2007, pp. 128-160.
  34. Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian. 446 F. 2d 738 (9th Cir. 1971).
  35. Hoehling v. Universal City Studios Inc., 618 F. 2d 97 (U. S.: Court of Appeals, 2nd Cir., 1980).
  36. Holbrook, Todd. S, Alan Nathan, Harris; Model Jury Instructions: Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Dress Litigation; American Bar Association, 2008.
  37. Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U. S. 82, 86 (1899) ; Feder v. Videotrip Corp., 697 F. Supp. 1165, 1169 (D. Colo. 1988).
  38. International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U. S. 215 (1918).
  39. Richard H; “The Myth of Idea/ Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law”; Pace Law Review, 10 (3), 1990, pp. 551-607.
  40. Laddie, Hugh; The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs; 3rd ed, London: Butterworths, 2000.
  41. Lai, Stanly; The Copyright Protection of Computer Software in the United Kingdom; Hart Publishing, 2000.
  42. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDOCE). 6th Ed. 2014.
  43. Mazer v. Stein, 347 U. S. 201, 217 (1954).
  44. McJohn, Stephen. M. ; Copyright: Examples and Explanations; New York: Aspen Publishers, 2006.
  45. Midway Mfg. Co. v. Bandai-America, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 125, 148 n. 23 (D. N. J. 1982), cert. denied, 475 U. S. 1047 (1986).
  46. Mihalek Corp. v. State of Michigan, 814 F. 2d 290, 294 (6th Cir. 1987) ; Johnson v. Donaldson, 3 F. 22, 24 (C. C. S. D. N. Y. 1880).
  47. Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Co., 379 F. 2d 675 (U. S.: Court of Appeals, 1st Cir., 1967).
  48. Murray, Michael; “Copyright, Originality, and the End of the Scenes a Faire and Merger Doctrines for Visual Works”; Illinois Public Law and Legal Theory Research Papers Series, 2006, pp. 3-122.
  49. Y Mercantile Exchange, Inc. v. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. 497 F. 3d 109 (2d Cir. 2007).
  50. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F. 2d 119 (U. S.: Court of Appeals, 2nd Cir., 1930).
  51. Ocasio, Sandro; “Pruning paracopyright protections: Why courts should apply the merger and scenes faire doctrines at the copyrightability stage of the copyright infringement analysis”; Seton Hall Circuit Review, 3 (1), 2006, pp. 303-337.
  52. Oliver v. Saint Germain Found., 41 F. Supp. 296, 299 (S. D. Cal. 1941).
  53. Plix Products Ltd v. Frank M. Winstone (Merchants) Ltd [1986] F. S. R. 63 (New Zealand: High Court), affirmed [1986] F. S. R. 608 (New Zealand: Court of Appeal).
  54. Raffoler, Ltd. v. Peabody & Wright, Ltd., 671 F. Supp. 947, 951 (E. D. N. Y. 1987).
  55. Samuelson, Pamela; “Functionality and Expression in Computer Programs: Refning the Tests for Sofware Copyright Infringement”; Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 31 (2), 2017, pp. 1215-1300.
  56. Samuelson, pamela; “Reconceptualizing Copyright’s Merger Doctrine”; Journal, Copyright Society of the U. S. A, 2016, pp. 417-470.
  57. Schwartz v. Universal Pictures Co. 85 F. Supp 270 (S. D. Cal. 1945).
  58. Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F. 2d 1157, 1168 n. 10 (9th Cir. 1977).
  59. Signo Trading Co. v. Gordon, 535 F. Supp. 362 (N. D. Cal. 1981).
  60. Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 663 F. Supp. 706, 712 (S. D. N. Y. 1987).
  61. TRIPS Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1995).
  62. S Copyright Law (1976).
  63. Uneeda Doll Co., v. P & M Doll Co., 353 F. 2d 788, 789 (2d Cir. 1965) (per curiam).
  64. Vaver, David; Principles of Copyright, Cases and Materials; WIPO Publication, 2002.
  65. Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International. 293 F. 3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002).
  66. Walker, Robert kirk; “Breaking with convention: The conceptual failings of scenes faire”; Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 38 (2), 2020, pp. 435-471.
  67. WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) (1996).
  68. casetext.com (Last visited: 4/8/2020(
  69. lexisnexis.com (Last visited: 7/8/2020(
  70. merriam-webster.com (Last visitd: 6/7/2020(
  71. wipo.int (Last visitd: 6/6/2020(
  72. wipolex.wipo.int (Last visitd: 7/8/2020(
  73. Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc., 754 F. 3d 95, 105 (2d Cir. 2014).