The beginning:
According to the Idea-Expression Dichotomy, copyright laws do not protect ideas but rather their expression. This consequently means that a principle not packaged in a specific arrangement of words, graphics or other forms may not be copyrighted.” Article 9(2) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) confirms that copyright protection only covers expressions, not ideas, techniques, methods of operation, or mathematical concepts.
Illustrations of Idea Expression Dichotomy:
The making of a movie centering on a Mumbai don’s life will not ban other producers; work in that line. In India, we have watched two great movies recently 1992 that were directed by Harsad Mehta and starred Pratik Gandhi and The Big Bull which also had Abhishek Bachchan as one of its actors directed by Kookie Gulati.” Both movies were from a story told by Harshad Mehta. Despite their similar storylines/plot, both films portrayed different ideas. R.G Anand v. M/S. Delux Films & Ors (1978) is a landmark decision in India concerning the idea-expression dichotomy. This holding established that pure ideas do not get copyright protection. Baker v. Selden (1879), the oldest case on thinking and expression, was decided by the United States Supreme Court but as for the protection it granted, it was for the expression made by Selden in his six volumes rather than how specified that in book-keeping methods.
relation between Idea Expression Dichotomy and copyright infringement.
Any copyright-protected work that must be infringed upon is subject to the idea-expression dichotomy. In this instance, the decision of The U.K. House of Lords in Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] underscores that in cases bordering on artistic copyright, the more general an idea that has been copied is, the less likely it is to be accorded a significant weighting. In a case where a staff member of the complainant designed a special type of dress material. The offender developed a nearly identical design of the material after seeing what the complainant had produced. The offender argued that he had not copied the plaintiff’s design but only the general idea which did not amount to infringement. The judge however found that the accused had reproduced most parts of the plaintiff’s work thus she was guilty.
In addition, the style, news, historical episodes, history or facts, art examples or scientific principles, simple concepts or schemes, methods of operation, and entertainment ideas are among them. This is an important thing to remember when trying to determine non-copyrightable ideas.
people can be inspired by other people’s ideas, but they cannot use the exact words or expressions because these are already in use by other authors; this is known as copyright infringement which occurs when one person’s work closely resembles that of another (Mattojai, 2016). The idea-expression divide recognizes that multiple individuals can have an identical idea but express it differently. Therefore, to offer a safeguard to an idea, which in essence is like a thought, might greatly hinder creation.
This idea has received global recognition in several localities such as India. Recently, a Single Judge from Delhi High Court discussed it in Humans of Bombay Stories Pvt Ltd v POI Social Media Pvt Ltd and Anr, MANU. The said case was about two social media platforms fighting over a breach of copyright rights through uploading unverified content online.
Humans of Bombay Experiences Pvt. Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) is a company that is involved in maintaining a platform where individual life experiences are shared through interviews, write-ups, etc. The claimant asked for a court order to prevent one POI Social Media Pvt Ltd (“the defendant”) from violating copyright concerning pictures used as a basis for stories in books, movies, etc., within it, and also creative expression, in terms of how stories are presented on their site or other sites that they own.
On 11 October 2023, a lower court judge repeated the concept of creativity versus expression and depended on the ruling in Eastern Book Company v D. B. Modak, in his work published in 2007 in the 13th Additional Supreme Court Reporter reported that “no copyright exists over an idea” and that in the case of themes, plots or historical facts, copyright infringement is limited to form, style and arrangement-states the same as R. G. Anand v. M/S Delux Films, back in 1978.
Specifically, the current case study looks at the idea-expression dichotomy within online social media platforms. What this means is that any business ideas or models with multiple interpretations are not copyrightable unless they are creatively depicted in them.” So, a firm should be careful while deciding what separates it from the competitors or, in other words, what the USPs are, and create systems capable of being defended by several intellectual property laws in order to make money from their inventions and keep strangers from stealing them away.
Examinations of differentiation
1.Lay Observer’s Test – Courts frequently use the regular person’s test to tell the difference between ideas and expression in particular cases; this test is named after an R.G. Anand Case methodology that has become widely applied since 1978. According to this approach, litigants must justify their claims by letting average lay people who are of sound minds go through the works alleged by their opponents or them, then highlight what seems to resemble or differ from what they have read as far as possible indicated facts as concerns the similarity or dissimilarity are taken into account during trial hearing and verdict determination.
2.Extraction Test – “This is a new test that has come into being through the case of Shamoil Ahmad Khan v. Falguni Shah &Ors. (2020) In this case, the Bombay High Court observed that from the conception of an idea it develops into a subject matter before becoming a story and ultimately turning into a full-length book largely due to individuals and environment. Genuine substance for the abstract concept was found after combining all types of labor.” If we gradually take away all accessory components, we will be left with pure or abstract concepts from which protectable ideas cannot be derived. This High Court in turn used the same method to evaluate its facts.
Relevant case laws
1.On the ruling by the Supreme Court of India in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008), the Copyright Act has been held to protect the expression of thought rather than any original ideas. For an author to obtain copyright, he must demonstrate an exercise of skill and judgment in producing the work which is not necessarily inventive or unconventional but also is not a mere result of toil and money. Thus, it has been said that the court in the United States denied the “sweat of the brow” standard and decided in favor of an approach based on “skill and judgment with a dash of originality”; however such creativity is visible not in the idea but in its articulation as a piece.
2.R. G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978) – The Indian Copyright Act doesn’t directly mention the idea-expression dichotomy. Still, the idea-expression rule was correctly laid out in the Supreme Court’s famous judgment in R.G. Anand v. M/S Deluxe Films & Ors (1978). However, this is the only Supreme Court decision that talks about the idea-expression dichotomy.
3.In Sulamangalam R. Jayalakshmi & Anr. v. Meta Musicals & Ors. (2000), The Madras High Court held that the act of copyright infringement involves the likelihood, according to an objective view, of similarity between two works. In this case, the Court referred to the 1978 case of R.G. Anand and applied the ordinary observer test.
In the creative business, the Idea-Expression Dichotomy promotes innovation and at the same time prevents monopoly. It allows for different opinions on similar topics. Even though copyright law does not cover ideas as such, idea protection may result from the use of confidential information in some cases, leading to the ownership of an idea. Therefore, copying ideas may breach confidentiality.
Written by-This is Dhrati Garg, persuing 3rd year of BALLB from Dharmashastra National Law University.
