Essay on Intellectual Property Protection: Copyright Does Not Protect Ideas but Expressions

Copyright is a form of intellectual property protection that is usually provided by the United States laws. The copyright protection is provided for authentic authorship works that are contained in a form that is tangible whether it is unpublished or published. The copyright law protects; software, live performance, literary works, movies paintings, and photographs. Therefore, copyrights do not protect ideas it only protects the expression of ideas. Ironically, an idea is the first important step in any invention or expression, but without any tangible form, the idea cannot be protected. Moreover, people should not give up if they only have ideas, but they need to work to create something out of the idea since copyrights law only protect the expression of an idea.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The fundamental goals of copyright laws are to give protection to the effort, creativity, and time that the creators work. Therefore the creator is given certain rights such as displaying the work publicly, reproducing the work, performing the work, preparing derivative works, and distributing copies of the work. Also, the owner of the copyright has the right in authorizing other people to the rights that are mention above, and the copyright owner has the privilege in transferring their exclusive rights to anyone. Despite all the rights that the copyright owner has, the laws only protect specific forms of manifestation of an idea which is commonly referred to as form of material expression. Sometimes is it difficult to establish who owns the copyright especially in cases of hire. In this case, the employer is the owner of the copyright and not the employee. In the case where there is collectiveness of various independent works, for example, the encyclopedia, the writers of every independent work hold the copyright of every contribution. Also in the case of joint authors, both the authors are the co-owners of the copyright unless there is a written consensus on the contrary.

Copyright Does Not Protect Ideas But Expressions

The ideas behind a work are not protected, however, the work itself is protected. It is believed that the expression of an idea is the one that is protected instead of the fundamental idea. Nonetheless, most individual find it hard to distinguish between the borderline of an idea and an expression, but luckily only courts can differentiate between the two. Traditionally the concept was the copyright gave protection to an expression of an idea and not the idea. This concept has been highly established by the United States courts whereas the United Kingdoms the concept varies especially in the context of computer programs. In the case of John Richardson computers in 1992, the thought of protecting the expression of an idea seemed right. However, a couple of years later, the usefulness of the concept was doubted, since it was assumed it would bring complications in the UK laws. The perspective was that UK copyright could not protect a mere idea that is general from being copied but can protect a detailed idea from being copied.

In the case of Hollinrake versus, Herschell LC referred to the fallacy perpetrated by counsel that copyright could subsist in an idea. the plaintiff filed a claim for copyright in a device for measuring the dimension of sleeves in the form of cardboard measurement chart. However, the court rejected the claim identifying it as the failure to distinguish between literary copyright and the right to patent an invention. This fallacy has survived to until to date, and the courts have repeatedly made statements that the extension of copyright protection is only to the expression and not the idea itself. However, with all its effort the authority has failed to deter litigants from the attempt of claiming copyright to ideas that are abstract.

One factor that determines copyright protection is the putting the idea into a tangible form. Doing this will be of great significance especially to the authors since even if they are not aware of what is being created the control arrangements can be left to another author. Similarly, Lord Denning MR stated in Ladbrokes versus William Hill that, ideas, thoughts, and fancies in a mans brain are not protected, however when they are produced in the form of material that is when copyright protection are granted.

Farewell J stated in Donoghue versus Allied Newspapers:

A person may have a brilliant idea for a story, or for a picture, or for a play and one which appears to him to be original; but if he communicates that idea to an author or an artist or a playwright, the production which is the result of the communication of the idea to the author or the artist or the playwright is the copyright of the person who has clothed the idea in a form.

For instance, in Donoghue, the experiences of a successful jockey were written by a ghost writer.' The assumption was that the copyright ownership was for the newspaper that had employed the journalist who had written the story of the jockey and not the jockey who only gave the story and did not put it into a tangible form. Farewell J further states that if the idea, however original, is more than an idea, and is not put into any form of words or any form of expression such as a picture, then there is no such thing as copyright at all. Moreover, the physical act of writing and drawing images or words into a tangible form is not always a determining factor in assigning someone the protection right. For instance, a secretary who takes down notes or a copyist is not the author. The issue of copyright protection arises when one applies their skills, effort, and labor in the creation of the work and not only the physical labor that is needed in to compile the work.

A plaintiff had been of great assistance in the Wiseman versus George Weidenfield and Nicolson. The plaintiff gave criticisms and advice to the second defendant to turn a novel into play. The plaintiff had not participated in writing any dialogue, and his degree of participation was not equal to a joint author. The courts have done a great job to differentiate events whereby a person has ideas and later on the person is given the responsibility to produce the work, in each case, the work has been made subject to contract or under equity. Another issue is in the case of Green versus New Zealand broadcasting corporation. Hughie Green, a broadcaster in the UK, basing on a television show, Opportunity Knocks, a successful show he sought to seek action on infringement of copyright. Seemingly, the New Zealand broadcasting corporation had copied the version of Greens show. They had used his format, approach, and catchphrases in their show. Therefore, Green was claiming copyright protection on the dramatic format, literary, and musical of the show. Nevertheless, due to the scripts being skeletal in nature which only provided a formula for the talent show production, no copyright could be claimed. The scripts were assumed only to provide guidance and did not ultimately specify how the show will be presented on the screen. Moreover this could only be discernable by those who watch the show. The New Zealand Court of Appeal and the Privy Council took the perspective that copyright do not protect ideas that are general, and from this, they believed that the broadcasting corporation in New Zealand could have come up with the same idea.

In Rees versus Melville a distinction was made between ideas that could be the subject of copyrights and incidents and events in a dramatic work that could be the subject of copyright protection. The court can in certain circumstances put into considerations the modes used to work out an idea and present it in a materialized form. Also, the court needs to put into regard the dramatic value and significance of everything that was taken including even the language. There have been recurrent attempts in the world of commercial and industry to give protection to specific designs of products. However, the court has to remain rigid unless evidence could be provided for any artistic or literary work could be shown.

It was passed that for the banal idea there will be no establishment of a copyright protection. In the case of the Kenrick versus Lawrence, the plaintiff wanted to claim copyright protection on the hand filling concept on a ballot paper. However, the court declared that there could be no copyright protection in the cliched idea. An expression of an idea is common and simple. Therefore, there cannot be an infringement of copyright by any reproduction that is short of the exact verbatim. Moreover, if a subject cannot be expressed in another way, copyright protection cannot be done. In Baggae versus Miller, there was a suggestion of a sketch by the plaintiff, but he left the defendant to make the composition in a dramatic work. The court took the perspective that, the mere suggestion of an idea which is embodied by another in a dramatic work written by him does not constitute the originator of the idea an author or a joint author of the dramatic work.

In the case of Kleeneze Ltd versus DRG Ltd, it involved copying of a design of a letterbox draught excluder, therefore, leading to an infringement action over it. The court believed that defendant had copied the plaintiffs idea, but the skills and labor they used in the designed were different. With the absence of a patent law, the court affirmed that the defendant was entitled to copy. The explanation behind it is that the defendant had seen one of the products produced by the plaintiff and decided to make a variant for their company. In some extent, the weakness of mere concepts under copyright law has been alleviated by the confidential information doctrine. However, Frazer versus Thames Television provided the best advice to everyone that generates new ideas that they should ensure to materialize their ideas.

Effects of Lack of Copyright Protection on Ideas

Neither copyright law nor patent law protects the idea that laws of nature, a mathematical theorem, phenomena that are natural among others. Therefore, scientists and mathematicians are left with no intellectual property protection for their important ideas. If the government could provide a generous finance help to mathematicians and scientist, the lack of not providing them with intellectual property protection can be acceptable, but the situation at hand seems unfair to the scientists and mathematicians. The financial support could act as a fruit of their intellectual labor.

In prohibiting to protect the ideas legally, the United States government has enacted rules to forbid mathematicians and scientists from gaining profits from their investment which includes personal labor, expenses, and skills in discovering new ideas. The reasons that spur this kind of behavior by the US to fail to protect intellectual property is that ideas are public property and everyone has an idea. This is easy to say, but the truth is coming up with ideas one needs to have a great sense of intellect, skill, diligence and creativity. Moreover, such attributes need to be encouraged and respected when it comes to public concerns.

It is common knowledge that a single publication of mathematics and science is a result of many hours of work which is usually poorly compensated with meager stipends or sometimes not paid at all. The works of scientists and mathematicians are among the few impact that individual face due to the law only protecting the expression of an idea and not the idea itself.