Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

The Idea-Expression Dichotomy in Artistic Works: The Case Study in the United Kingdom


Affiliations
1 Universitas Syiah Kuala, Darussalam, Banda Aceh, 23111, Aceh, Indonesia
 

Under the idea/expression dichotomy, the protection of copyright extends only to an artist‟s original expression and it does not protect the ideas that are being expressed. Lord Hoffmann‟s decision in Designers Guild v Russel Williams (Textiles) Ltd has clearly interpreted that the idea that is only in the head that has been unexpressed in a copyrightable form is not entitled to copyright. Nevertheless, a problem may arise when the idea and its expression are difficult to be separated and they are considered to have merged or called as scenes a faire. As a result, this merger doctrine has caused the expression not copyrightable. In the UK, this merger doctrine can be seen from the House of Lord‟s decision in LB Plastics v Swish and Hanfstaengl v Baines.

Keywords

Idea-Expression Dichotomy, Copyright, Design and Patent Act, 1988, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Rights, 1994, Artistic Works, Scenes a Faire.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Karwowska A, Copyright and the Digital Economy Act, European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, 2 (1) (2015) 19-36.

  • Colston C & Middleton, K, Modern Intellectual Property Law, (2nd ed.) (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited), (2005) 258.

  • Bainbridge D I, Intellectual Property, (7th ed.) (Essex, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited), (2009) 49.

  • Colston C & Middleton, K, Modern Intellectual Property Law, (2nd ed.) (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited), (2005) 256.

  • Bently L & Sherman, B, Intellectual Property Law, (3rd ed.) (New York: Oxford University Press), (2009) 181.

  • Ang S, The Idea-Expression Dichotomy and Merger Doctrine in the Copyright laws of the U.S. and the U.K., International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 2 (2) (1994) 111-153.

  • Arnold, R, The need for new copyright act: A case study in law reform, Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 5 (2) (2015) 110-131.

  • Pocock C, Originality in EU copyright: Full harmonization through case law, Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 4 (2) (2014) 166-168.

  • Oila J, Copyright and its categories of original work, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 30 (2) (2010) 229-254.

  • Spencer M & Endicott T, Vagueness in the scope of copyright, Law Quarterly Review, 121 (2005) 657-680.

  • Ruiz N, Copyright's paradox: The public interest and private monopoly, Intellectual Property Law Bulletin, 18 (2) (2014) 213-234, p.218.

  • Spencer M & Endicott T, Vagueness in the scope of copyright, Law Quarterly Review, 121 (2005) 657-680, p.657.

  • Bainbridge D I, Cases & Materials in Intellectual Property Law, (2nd ed.) (London: Financial Times Management) (1999) 37.

  • Colston C & Middleton, K, Modern Intellectual Property Law, (2nd ed.) (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited), (2005) 257.

  • Bainbridge D I, Cases & Materials in Intellectual Property Law, (2nd ed.) (London: Financial Times Management) (1999) 37-38.

  • Lau E, Originality in European Union Copyright Law, Southampton Student Law Review, 5 (1) (2015) 46-50.

  • Bently L & Sherman, B, Intellectual Property Law, (3rd ed.) (New York: Oxford University Press), (2009) 182.

  • Masiyakurima P, The futility of the idea expression dichotomy in UK Copyright Law, International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law, 38 (5) (2007) 548-572, p. 549.

  • Bainbridge D I, Cases & Materials in Intellectual Property Law, (2nd ed.) (London: Financial Times Management) (1999) 38.

  • Bainbridge D I, Cases & Materials in Intellectual Property Law, (2nd ed.) (London: Financial Times Management) (1999) 49.

  • LB Plastic v Swish (1979) FSR 145

  • Davis J, Intellectual Property Law, (4th ed.) (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press), (2012) 36.

  • Burell R & Coleman A, Copyright Exceptions: The Digital Impact, (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press) (2009) 22.

  • Colston C & Middleton, K, Modern Intellectual Property Law, (2nd ed.) (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited), (2005) 259.

  • Corelli v Gray (1913) 30 TLR 116.

  • Derclaye E, Are fashion designers better protected in continental Europe than in the United Kingdom: A comparative analysis of the recent case law in France, Italy and the United Kingdom, Journal of World Intellectual Property, 13 (3) (2010) 315-365.

  • Deschamps C, Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Networks and Copyright Law in France, Ireland, and the UK, Irish Student Law Review, 17 (2010) 155-186.

  • Edenborough M, Copyright: Potential infringement of a literary work by its reproduction in three dimensions, European Intellectual Property Review, 17 (9) (1995) 259-260.

  • Cornish W R, Cases and Materials on Intellectual Property (2nd ed.) (London: Sweet & Maxwell), (1996) 253.

  • Cornish W R, Cases and Materials on Intellectual Property (2nd ed.) (London: Sweet & Maxwell), (1996) 255.

  • Bainbridge D I, Cases & Materials in Intellectual Property Law, (2nd ed.) (London: Financial Times Management) (1999) 39.

  • Bainbridge D I, Cases & Materials in Intellectual Property Law, (2nd ed.) (London: Financial Times Management) (1999) 178.

  • Bently L & Sherman, B, Intellectual Property Law, (3rd ed.) (New York: Oxford University Press), (2009) 173.

  • Designer Guild Ltd v Russel William (Textiles) [2001] FSR 11, 113.

  • Designer Guild Ltd v Russel William (Textiles) [2001] FSR 11, 118.

  • Masiyakurima P, The futility of the idea expression dichotomy in UK Copyright Law, International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law, 38 (5) (2007) 548-572, p. 553.

  • Bently L & Sherman, B, Intellectual Property Law, (3rd ed.) (New York: Oxford University Press), (2009) 183.

  • Masiyakurima P, The futility of the idea expression dichotomy in UK Copyright Law, International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law, 38 (5) (2007) 548-572, p.560.

  • Sheridan J, Copyright's knowledge principle, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 17 (1) (2014) 39-106.

  • Ruiz N, Copyright's paradox: The public interest and private monopoly, Intellectual Property Law Bulletin, 18 (2) (2014) 213-234.

  • Designer Guild Ltd v Russel William (Textiles) [2001] FSR 11, 123-124

  • Bently L & Sherman, B, Intellectual Property Law, (3rd ed.) (New York: Oxford University Press), (2009) 184.

  • Spencer M & Endicott T, Vagueness in the scope of copyright, Law Quarterly Review, 121 (2005) 657-680, p. 671.

  • Navitaire v Easy Jet [2006] RPC 4.

  • Nova Production v Mazooma Games Ltd [2006] RPC (14) 379.

  • Baigent v The Random House Group Ltd [2007] FSR 24.

  • Baigent v The Random House Group Ltd [2007] FSR 24, p. 579.

  • Baigent v The Random House Group Ltd [2007] FSR 24, p. 584.


Abstract Views: 208

PDF Views: 151




  • The Idea-Expression Dichotomy in Artistic Works: The Case Study in the United Kingdom

Abstract Views: 208  |  PDF Views: 151

Authors

Mahfud Mahfud
Universitas Syiah Kuala, Darussalam, Banda Aceh, 23111, Aceh, Indonesia
Faisal A. Rani
Universitas Syiah Kuala, Darussalam, Banda Aceh, 23111, Aceh, Indonesia

Abstract


Under the idea/expression dichotomy, the protection of copyright extends only to an artist‟s original expression and it does not protect the ideas that are being expressed. Lord Hoffmann‟s decision in Designers Guild v Russel Williams (Textiles) Ltd has clearly interpreted that the idea that is only in the head that has been unexpressed in a copyrightable form is not entitled to copyright. Nevertheless, a problem may arise when the idea and its expression are difficult to be separated and they are considered to have merged or called as scenes a faire. As a result, this merger doctrine has caused the expression not copyrightable. In the UK, this merger doctrine can be seen from the House of Lord‟s decision in LB Plastics v Swish and Hanfstaengl v Baines.

Keywords


Idea-Expression Dichotomy, Copyright, Design and Patent Act, 1988, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Rights, 1994, Artistic Works, Scenes a Faire.

References