1.

This distinction between the ideas and expressions was the fundamental axiom of copyright
law.1
However, defining the distinction between idea and expression has often proved much difficult.
2. The former being protectable while the latter not - The distinction is crucial, since a monopoly on
ideas might impair the very goals that intellectual property law seeks to promote.
3. Where an idea and the expression cannot be separated and are said to have merged, such an
amalgamation is termed as the doctrine of merger. The doctrine of merger holds that when an idea
can only be expressed in a certain way, the expression is not protectable.
4. Idea can have certain expressions and without those expressions the idea would cease to exist --
changing the expression of the same in a particular form would, as a result, change the very idea
itself. These essential ideas not copyrightable, as to copyright them would also, in effect,
copyright the idea. (scenes a faire EXAMPLE)
5. The doctrine of originality, i.e., the requirement that he who seeks copyright must be the author of
an original work is the primary tool for assessing copyright protection as it shows independent
creation as well. The defendant cannot be held liable in copyright where he can show that his
work, though identical to or substantially similar to the plaintiffs, was independently created.
6. The point is that the plaintiff in such a suit cannot claim an interest whose assertion amounts to a
denial of the very possibility of the defendants assertion of that same interest.
7. The lesson to be drawn from such formulations is that a plaintiff seeking to enjoin a defendant
from using or adopting in the defendants own work ideas expressed in the plaintiffs work is a
plaintiff seeking to interfere with the defendants own original expression.
8. Considered in their bare generality, ideas are the material but not the product of the work of
authorship.
9. Why the law of copyright defines originality as pertinent only to expression, and not to idea?
In USA
10. Baker v. Selden- use of acc. System similar to that of the plaintiffs---held in fav. Of the Def---
expression (description of the art in the book) is copyrightable but the idea (art) not.
11. Execpetion to exclusive rights own use, teaching, research, scholarship; Law in USA recognizes
the common idea not protect
12. USA copyright does not extend to idea, principle, concept regardless of their form of
description. Etc.
13. US Courts (Comp. Prog) for which the program was created would constitute the idea and that
the mode in which a program operates, controls and regulates the computer is the expression.
14. The Three Stage Test:
i) Abstraction- break down the allegedly infringed program into its constituent structural
parts as a work may consist of a mixture of numerous ideas and expressions".
ii) Filtration- Then, by examining each of these parts a court would then be able to sift out
all non- protectable material.
iii) Comparison- After following this process of elimination, the court's last step would be to
compare this material with the structure of an allegedly infringing program. The result of
this comparison will determine whether the protectable elements have been infringed.

1 Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv.; 499 U.S. 340, 344-45 (1991).
 In U.K
15. Distortion - if the idea is worked out in some detail by the plaintiff and subsequently the
defendant reproduces the expression of that idea, then it may be an infringement. 2 As in such
cases the detailed expression is copied leading to infringement.
16. Judiciary- sole and inseparable methods of expression can be subject to copyright.
17. Where certain ideas expressed by a copyright work are not original, they are not entitled to
copyright protection as the borrowing of such idea would not constitute the taking of a substantial
part of the work.---- A mere contemplation of an idea similar to the objective sought to be
achieved by the computer program.
In INDIA
18. R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films Plaintiff alleged that film-maker copied substantial
portions from his play in his movies. 7POINT TEST----by the court. broad
dissimilarities, hence no infringement.
i) No copyright for ideas, themes, plots---- only the arrangement and mode.; ii) Similarities
should be substantial.
ii) Opinion of the person having gone through both the works.
iii) No infringement when same theme but diff. presentation.
iv) Clear and cogent reasons to prove infringement.
v) If less similarities but MORE Dissimilaritiesno infringement.
19. Barbara Taylor Bradford v. Sahara Media Entertainment Ltd Two Policies.
i) Law must protect originality of work, thereby allowing the authors to reap the
fruits of their labour and stopping unscrupulous pirates from enjoying those fruits.
ii) The protection must not become over-protection eventually limiting future creativity.
20. Eastern Book Company and Ors. v. D.B. Modak. Copy-edited judgments.

Law regarding this topic has not developed much in India. The law developed in the US and the UK
cannot be set aside. The pros of both these schools should be adopted to determine a middle path.

2 Harman Pictures N.V. v. Osborne (1967) 1 W.L.R. 723 at 728