The concept of ‘Idea’ is subjective, not because it deals only with the abstract nature of it, rather because it differs from person to person. An idea will always be in an abstract form, which in itself, cannot be witnessed in physical form. But the same can be made in physical form by giving expression to it. Taking, for example, I had idea-with respect to how this article should be, what are the things that should be added to enhance my article or instead expressing my idea in a written article form. But, the same idea was only in abstract form, that is to say, it is intangible and differs from person to person. On the other side, the same idea of mine can be expressed through writing as an article, as a book, or as a short story. This article will deal with the interesting concept of copyright of Idea and whether the idea (abstract nature) of mine, as mentioned earlier, can be copyrighted in my name or not.
Jurisprudence behind Copyright:
Before looking into the jurisprudence behind copyright law, it is important to define what copyright is. Copyright, in the general sense, is nothing but the bundle of rights that is provided to any person for his/her works to exercise a monopoly right to use/exploit or even get commercial benefits out of such copyrighted work. The main object behind the provision of copyright to any person is ultimate to vest some certain rights as per law, on him so that the person can enjoy possession and ownership of such copyrighted material. Now, the question is, can any right of possession and ownership be attached with any abstract concept, which is ‘Idea’ in this scenario. Possession in itself is an abstract concept and requires a material to be in existence, if there is no material existence, then there is no possession as per law. Similarly, no ownership can be claimed over intangible things and the legal rights are attached only with the concept of ownership, whereas for possession there is not. So, for a law or a rule to give ownership to any person, it requires an object to be present and is capable of being legally determined. Thus, it is clear from the jurisprudential perspective that copyright, which is a bundle of rights, never protects the mere abstract nature of an Idea.
Copyright law and Requirement of ‘Expression of Ideas’:
As per Copyright law, two main requirements need to be satisfied for a work to be protected through Copyright. Firstly, the work needs to be original and not a mere display of existing copyrighted works. Even though this is one of the main requirements for copyright protection, we are not concerned about the originality now, instead concerned with the second requirement, that is, there should be expressions of ideas in the concerned work and not just mere Ideas. Various case laws have discussed this relevant factor while determining copyright infringement. Courts have come up with the doctrine of Idea/Expression Dichotomy to distinguish the Idea and Expressions of Ideas.
Under the Copyright act of 1957, section 13 (1) deals with the concept of originality concerning artistic, literary, musical works. It states that copyright shall not subsist if there is no originality. This originality also relates to the originality in the expression of ideas and not mere originality in ideas. Similarly, under the International regime, the Berne convention-which is noted as a copyright convention, also speaks on protection for expressions of ideas and does not expressly speak on protection for mere Ideas.
Why does Doctrine of Idea/Expression Dichotomy matter in Copyright law?
The doctrine of Idea/Expression Dichotomy has its significance in copyright law as it distinguishes mere ideas from the expression of Ideas and helps to protect the expressions and not the ideas. This doctrine ensures that a work is protected not for just ideas, instead originality of Ideas. Two principles embodied under the dichotomy doctrine are,
- Protect originality of work,
- Prevention of over-protection of works which would otherwise result in curbing of creativity.
One of the famous cases that dealt with the doctrine of idea/dichotomy was Baker v. Seldon in the year 1879. The US Court, in that case, observed that ‘The basic foundation of federal copyright law is that there are open expressions of the ideas of the creator and not the ideas themselves give rise to protected interests’.
Why not the copyright of Ideas?
So far, we have witnessed that there has been no rule of law that enables protection under copyright law for mere ideas. But, it becomes very important to know why such practice exists. Is it because there will be a lot of ideas and such a number of ideas cannot be copyrighted? No, the main reason is that if all the ideas (even if it is original) is to be protected under law, then there will not be any innovation or any creativity from existing ideas. It is from that idea; a new or creative idea would emerge in the future. The idea is not subject matter under law however creative or brilliant it is. There should be originality in the expression of such ideas. An important case to cite for reference would be Nichols v. Universal Pictures Publication. It was, in this case, the court dealt with the question- to what extent the ideas are protected under copyright law? It observed that the general rule is, as per the idea/expression dichotomy doctrine, that ideas never be copyrightable, though the expression of such gets the protection. If the works are more leaned towards the idea, then the court observed that the play/work may nonetheless be copyrightable.
Conclusion:
From the above analysis of whether Ideas can be protected under copyright law, we can conclude that in most copyright infringement cases, the court has applied the doctrine of dichotomy to entertain creativity in the expression of ideas and requires the originality in the expression of ideas and not just ideas.
