IDEA-EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY: A CORNERSTONE OF COPYRIGHT LAW BY - RITHVIK GUNDAVARAPU
IDEA-EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY: A
CORNERSTONE OF COPYRIGHT LAW
AUTHORED BY
- RITHVIK GUNDAVARAPU
SYMBIOSIS
LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD
Abstract:
A key part of copyright law is the concept of “idea-expression
dichotomy”. When people talk about ideas, they mean mind images or
concepts. Most people think of thinking as changing ideas, which means it
involves words. What kinds of things can be protected in a movie plot? And how
will the right people rate it? So, the difference between thought and
expression is like a tricky sliding scale in India. In order to understand
India's position about the laws of the USA and UK, this study was done.
The research paper will follow a doctrinal mode of research. The main
objective of this research paper is to look at the different rules on
Idea-Expression Dichotomy in different countries. This paper starts with how
the idea-expression dichotomy doctrine has changed over time. It then shows how
it is used in American, English, and Indian courts, talking about how Indian judiciary
has approached and use these foreign cases in order to resolve the infringement
cases. Further the paper also discusses about some exceptions to this rule,
like the “doctrine of merger and scenes a faire”, with a major focus on how
these doctrines are used in India. This idea hasn't quite hit the level of
abstraction that is needed in developing countries like India, and it hasn't
been used very much in that setting. Lastly, the researcher also discusses how
complicated this principle is and how the court of law should fix the problems
by suggesting specific ways to make policies and put them into action.\
Keywords:
Originality, Copyright, Idea, expression, Dichotomy, Creativity, Merger, Scenes
a Faire
1.
INTRODUCTION
The creator of an original work of
authorship, such as a literary work, song, movie, or piece of software, is
automatically granted all of the rights that fall within the copyright when the
work is created. The owner of the copyright has the legal right to reproduce
the work, as well as the right to make derivative works, distribute copies of
the work, perform the work publicly, and exhibit it in public. This also
signifies that the owner has full control over the means and methods through which
the general public can access the work. The primary objective of copyright is
to incentivize creators to continue their innovative work by providing them
with a system of property rights that guarantees them fair recompense in
exchange for providing access to their works that may be appreciated by the
general population. [1]
1.1 Meaning of Copyright
Indian law gives copyright
protections to authors who have original works for example, works of literature
including “computer programs, tables,
collections, computer datasets, expressed in words, codes, schemes, dramatic,
musical, and artistic works, films, and audio recordings”. Under “Section 13 of the Copyright Act”,[2]
works of literature, theatre, music, art, “cinematographic films, and sound
recordings” are protected by copyright. For example, the Act protects things
like books and computer programs that are written.
Section 14 of the Act[3] gives the copyright owner rights
that no one else can use. These rights can only be used by the copyright owner
or by someone else with the owner's permission to do so. These rights include
the right to copy, publish, translate, and talk to the public. Copyright
registration doesn't give the work any rights; all it does is add it to the
Copyright Register, which the Registrar of Copyrights keeps with him.[4]
1.2 Nature of Copyright
Copyright is a property that doesn't
have a physical form. The work belongs to the rightful owner because they made
it or made it better. The owner has two ways to get rid of his property: sell
it outright or grant a license. Copyright is also a set of rights that no one
else can have. One person can only use works protected by copyright for a
specific time. Copyright only lasts for a certain amount of time, unlike
physical property, which stays with the thing it was given to until it dies.
The work is in the "public domain" after this time has passed. In
other words, it belongs to the public and can be used by anyone without any
restrictions. Hence, having “exclusive
rights” to copy-protected works for a short time is in the public's best
interest.[5]
2. REVIEW OF LITERARURE
2.1 Books
·
“Avtar Singh, Intellectual Property Rights”.[6] The author discusses about how
intellectual property rights are recognized and what laws are in place to
protect them. From this book, the
researcher will analyze the recognition of copyright laws in the digital world.
Also, the pros and cons in the present scenario.
·
“Dr. M.K Bhandari, Laws Relating to Intellectual Property Rights”.[7] The author talks about “GATTS, WTO,
and other agreements like TRIPS, TRIMS,” etc., and how they have been used to
govern IPRs today. The researcher
will look at how the copyright is being changed by digitalization. As
information has grown, artists have found new ways to show their creativity.
These new ways are all protected by copyright laws.
·
“Dr. B.L Wal Dehra, Law Relating to Intellectual Property”.[8] The author
explains what intellectual property rights are and what rights people have for
different kinds of intellectual property. Also, the author shows how a person's
intellectual property rights are broken and how the law deals with these
situations. According to this
finding, the Indian Copyright Act still has an issue that have not been
resolved to anyone satisfaction. It is now much simpler to generate new works
of art and literature because to the widespread availability of the Internet.
The information can be transmitted from the creator to the viewer and then from
the viewer to the viewer, creative types such as authors and artists can use
the internet to get the word out about their work. On the other hand,
technology makes it possible for any of these viewers to quickly and easily
alter, change, or share an original work created by an author.
2.2 Articles
·
Irania Atanasova, paper titled, “Copyright Infringement in Digital
Environment”[9].
The author discusses about the possibility of copyright laws in the new
technological world. He looks at the new generation by creating an environment
where things happen quickly and unexpectedly. He also sets up a legal delay and
legal ambiguity that has a big effect on copyright law.
·
Kai Tumbraegel and Roux de Villiers, paper titled, “Copyright Protection for the
Non-Literal Elements of a Computer Program”.[10] The author discusses about the
possibility of copyright regulation in the new high-tech world. He checks out
the newest gadgets. He creates uncertainty and delays in the law by making
things change quickly and without notice. One of the worst things about
software is that it can be copied in ways that aren't the same as the software.
They look at both the literal and the non-literal parts of each computer
programme. The researcher in this
study will examine all the pros and cons for computer programme and software
protection with the current existing legal framework in India.
·
Vaishali Sharma, paper titled, “An Analytical study of relevancy of
Idea-Expression Dichotomy under copyright law”.[11]
The author discusses about how the idea-expression dichotomy acknowledges that
multiple individuals may possess identical ideas, yet there might be distinct
modes of presentation. Consequently, affording protection to an idea,
fundamentally a thought, may significantly impede creativity.
·
Tanvi Tewari, paper titled, “The Idea-Expression Dichotomy: Does this
Dichotomy really exist?”[12]
In this study, the author begins by delineating the evolution of the
idea-expression dichotomy theory and subsequently demonstrates its application
in American, English, and Indian legal systems, emphasizing the adoption of
foreign laws by Indian courts in adjudicating infringement cases. The study
outlines various exceptions to this principle, including the idea of Merger and
Scenes a Faire, with a particular focus on their implementation in India.
2.3 Judicial
Pronouncements
·
In
“Humans
of Bombay Stories Pvt Ltd v POI Social Media Pvt Ltd and Anr”,[13]
where conflicts arose between two social media platforms concerning copyright
infringements related to online content. In the current instance, it
was reaffirmed that no monopoly can be established over the concept of a
storytelling platform. Nonetheless, such a platform may assert copyright
protection for its distinctive manner of communication and content dissemination.
The Court determined that if an individual submits photographs and films to
several platforms, no copyright claim would be conferred to any platform unless
the materials were solely commissioned or there was a contrary arrangement.
Consequently, both Humans of Bombay and People of India were prohibited from
utilizing any copyrighted material belonging to the other, and the lawsuit was
resolved by mutual consent of the parties.
·
The
cases “Eastern Book Company v D. B. Modak”,[14]
and “R.
G. Anand v. M/S Delux Films”,[15] the
court observes that the form, manner, arrangement, and expression of the
author's work, the court makes the observation that the copyright does not
extend to ideas, subjects, themes, stories, or historical or legendary facts.
In these circumstances, the infringement of copyright is restricted to the
form, manner, assembly, and expression of the author's work.
3.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
It is said that not all
concepts can be articulated creatively. Certain concepts can frequently be
articulated in only a specific manner. In this scenario, copyright of the
expression would equate to copyrighting the idea, so impeding the free
exchange of ideas. In instances where expression is essential for conveying an
idea, courts invoke the Merger Doctrine to determine that no copyright exists. It
primarily aims to delineate the intersection of ideas and expressions.
The researcher in this
paper has found the following issues-
- The Act needs a clear definition of ideas,
expression and dichotomy.
- There needs to be proper enforcement of copyright
laws.
- There needs to be a special forum to look into
situations where copyright laws are infringed in the area of
ideas-expression dichotomy.
- The Judiciary should enforce copyright laws and
give clarity between ideas and expression.
4.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
- To analyze the interconnection between ideas,
expression and dichotomy.
- To analyze international perspective of
ideas-expression dichotomy under copyright law.
- To examine the laws that are governing in India
and how the Indian judiciary has taken its approach.
- To analyze the exceptions and the loopholes in
the Indian laws to prevent copyright infringement.
- To make suggestions on idea expression dichotomy.
5.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher has
followed the mode of the doctrinal research. The researcher has reviewed both
primary and secondary sources to conclude the study. To achieve the aim of the
study, the researcher has analyzed various statutes of copyright and IT laws and
relied upon books, newspapers, articles, journals, judgments and other sources.
Also, the researcher has used a variety of internet websites, including SCC
online, Law octopus, and Manupatra, to support the cases. The researcher has
also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court to have concrete proposals
for improving the provisions in the Indian scenario, which have been thoroughly
analyzed.
6.
THE CONCEPT OF IDEAS AND EXPRESSION
6.1 Meaning of Ideas
under Copyright
People talk about,
argue about, and think about ideas as mental images, forms, representations, or
pictures. As a result, expressions are always a part of thinking because it is
usually seen or noticed as manipulating ideas or concepts. When it comes to
this talk, the word "ideas" is more controversial. Not only is it
hard to agree on broad meanings, but it's also not clear what ideas mean in
terms of copyright. It is difficult to explain the word in a single line
because it can mean a lot of different things. Some general dictionaries say
that an idea is a thought or a concept of the mind that comes from mental
activity, understanding, or knowledge.[16]
Thus, the ideas can be
thought of as processes of the author's mind when it comes to copyright. It's
also possible to think of ideas as external objects, which means something that
wasn't necessarily suggested by the author but rather something that the reader
came to their conclusion about.[17]
6.2 Meaning of
Expression under Copyright
The
"expression" is the act or instance of putting something into words,
whether it's a word, sentence, or form of words; the way something is put into
words; wording; phrasing; or the way an idea is broken down into words. While
Indian law doesn't give a clear definition of the word "expression,"
it is generally based on copyright laws which states that a work must be
expressed in some way, as explained in Section 13 of the Act.[18]
Thus, this means that when an author puts his or her thoughts or ideas from the
"mind" into a certain form, like writing, picture, recording, etc.,
this is considered an expression under copyright law.[19]
6.3 Meaning of
Dichotomy under Copyright
The copyright includes
original works of literature, art, music, and theatre. It is important to
remember that the protection only covers speech and not ideas. Dichotomy means
"difference" in English. This means that the idea-expression conflict
is about the idea and the expression. An idea is something that can't be seen.
It's the way it's expressed that gives it a real shape and makes it protected. [20]
A lot of artists might
have the same idea for a picture. But what makes a difference is how they
present themselves, or how they turn their ideas into something real. To put it
simply, the artist who paints the picture first will be able to claim ownership
of their work, which in this case is the painting. It's possible that other
artists had the same idea before you, but as it is discussed about, the concept remains unprotected by
law, and only those who articulate it will provide it with legal safeguarding.
Similarly, computer programs are regarded as literary works. A generic concept
cannot be safeguarded by copyright; nevertheless, when that concept is
expressed through visual representations, written content, or other perceivable
mediums, it becomes eligible for protection. Individuals exert effort, it can
be safeguarded, and instances of violation can be pursued. In some instances,
an individual appropriates the manner of expression of a concept, rather than
the idea itself.[21]
7.
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
The dichotomy was
originally mentioned in Baker v. Seldeni,[22]
wherein the US Supreme Court established that the author of a treatise
describing a unique book-keeping method cannot claim exclusive property under
copyright laws. In the judgment, the distinction between copyright and letters
patent is discussed.
7.1 Book-Keeping
Hypothesis
In Baker v. Selden,[23]
the decision addressed whether a book explaining an accounting system can be
used to claim exclusivity under copyright law. The Court noted that a book
describing the construction of a plough, watch, or churn cannot claim exclusive
rights to the art or industry detailed in the book. The uniqueness of the work
or thing described does not affect the copyright validity. The grant of
exclusive property rights to the book author without an official review of its
innovation would be a surprise and fraud to the public.
The Court clarified
that exclusivity falls under the letter of patent, not copyright. The first
mention of the difference between the two notions and the idea that copyright
only protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself, is established
here.[24]
7.2 International
Perspective
In Hollinrake v. Truswellii,[25]
established the principle of distinguishing expressions from ideas, granting
copyright protection only to expressions. The lawsuit involved Mr. Hollinrake
claiming copyright for a cardboard sleeve-measuring apparatus. Users may
accurately create sleeves of any size by following instructions and utilizing
scales printed on the gadget. Copyright could exist in a "book or sheet of
letterpress" or "map, chart or plan" under the Copyright Act, of
1842.
In “Exxon
Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Limited”,[26]
Davey LJ asserted that literary works aim to provide information,
instruction, or literary enjoyment, not to advance human knowledge or provide
instruction through description or otherwise. According to Davey LJ, the
objective of the book was not to provide information or entertainment but
rather to teach dressmaking.
Moreover, the Court
determined that copyright safeguards creations that engage the human intellect,
rather than merely functional tools for production. The case pertained to a
literary work that detailed a cardboard pattern, featuring scales, numbers, and
spoken directions for its adaptation of various dimensions, which cannot
function as an instrument or tool. The term 'Exxon' was determined not to
constitute a literary work eligible for copyright protection, notwithstanding
evidence of its origin and the effort involved in its creation and selection.
The music, designed for commercial purposes, did not correspond with its
textual aim of captivating the human intellect.[27]
Thus, Hollinrake Supra
and Exxon Supra together support the concept by inferring whether the
copyrighted subject matter is an idea or an enactment or expression of the
idea. Unfortunately, neither subject matter passed the test to establish itself
as an expression. In one case, a technical guidebook was deemed patentable,
while in the other, a corporate name with an objective outside of literary
works was deemed unsuitable for expression and merely an idea.[28]
7.3 Reporters have
writing rights.
In Walter v. Laneiv,[29]
in this case the
shorthand notes were taken by reporters from The Times newspaper during
speeches given by the Earl of Rosebery, a renowned politician who had
previously served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. After that, they
transcribed the notes, adding punctuation, making mistakes, and making
adjustments in order to generate an exact account of the speech. This collection
of lectures was published in the Times Newspaper while Arthur Fraser Walter was
the proprietor of the publication. A significant portion of Lord Rosebery's
talks, which were subsequently published in Appreciations and Addresses, were
derived from those that were reported in the Times Newspaper.
The court deliberated on whether or
not the reporters who reported on these talks should be deemed writers in
accordance with the Copyright Act. The court came to the conclusion that even
if the reporters did not grasp the idea behind the talks, they did put in the
effort to transcribe them, which needed intellectual talent and mental labor.
It is widely acknowledged that this decision marked a significant turning point
in the development of the idea of originality in English Copyright Law prior to
the addition of the word "originality" to the Act.
7.4 Copyright does not
protect ideas.
In “L.B.
Plastics v Swish Products Ltd”,[30]
the distinction was confirmed in the context of plastic knock-down drawer
drawings. It was a furniture component provided unassembled, typically
assembled by the buyer and dismantled if desired. The defendants copied the
drawers from 2D plans, but the drawers were 3D.
The House of Lords
ruled that an idea and its expression are inseparable. Despite not copying the
plaintiff's work, the defendant was found liable for copyright infringement
under “Section 9(8) of the Copyright Act”, which states that making a
three-dimensional object is not considered copyright. To infringe copyright in
a two-dimensional artistic creation, the object must not look like a
reproduction to non-experts.[31]
Thus, an idea is not copyrighted, the defendant copied speech details. Lord
Wilberforce ruled that a mere notion does not grant copyright, hence the
appellants cannot file a complaint if the defendant took their idea of external
latching or other embedded ideas.
8.
AN ANALYSIS STATUS OF
THE INDIAN JUDICIARY ON IDEAS AND EXPRESSION
In “R.G.
Anand v. Deluxe Films”,[32]
which brought the subject of free speech to the public's attention. The
plaintiff, a part-time writer and stage play producer, said that the defendant,
a filmmaker, stole important parts of his play to use in a movie version. He
claimed that this was an infringement of his copyright. The respondent said
that the shared theme wasn't just in the plaintiff's work but in many works.
The Supreme Court came up with the following rules to settle the case after
carefully looking at all the important authorities and past cases:
Ideas, themes, stories,
and facts are not protected by copyright law; what is protected is how the
author expresses these things. Even if two works have similar ideas, they are
still infringing on each other if they copy large amounts of expression.
Copyright is breached if the defendant's work looks a lot like the original and
only has small differences.
Further, there is no
infringement when a shared idea is presented in a new way that makes a new
work. There was no purpose to copy because the works are different and have
some similarities that happened by chance. To prove copyright infringement, you
need clear, convincing proof that meets certain legal standards.
It is difficult to
prove that a film producer or director violated the copyright of a stage play
because movies are more general and can be shown in many ways. Regardless,
infringement can be proven if viewers notice major copying from the original
play. The Court found that while both the play and the movie dealt with the
theme of provincialism, the movie did so in a clearer way. There were some
clear connections between the two works, but there were also some big
differences that showed no attempt to copy the original content as there was no
violation of copyright in this case.[33]
In the case of “R.
Madhavan v. S.K. Nair”,[34]
the court decided that there was a clear lack of similarity or resemblance
between the themes, scenes, and events in the movie and the book. Most of the
important events, settings, and scenes in the movie were very different from
those in the plaintiff's book. The court decided that there was a clear lack of
resemblance between the movie and the book in terms of plot, scenes, and
situations. There were big differences between what happened in the movie and
what the plaintiff wrote in his book in terms of events, settings, and scenes.
In the case of “Anil
Gupta v. Kunal Dasgupta”,[35]
the Delhi High Court looked at the difference between thought and expression.
The plaintiff talked to the defendant about making their idea for a reality TV
show about matching people up air on TV. The person who complained said that
the defendant had stolen his idea and filed a case for copyright infringement.
When it came to the idea itself, the suspect said that copyright could only
protect the words.
The Court agreed,
saying that copyright doesn't just cover thoughts. But it also said that even
if the idea in question is just an idea, it can be protected by copyright if
it's new and different. The idea-expression dichotomy has been looked at more
in decision reporting lately, especially in the 2008 Supreme Court case Eastern
Book Company and Ors. v. D.B. Modak.
In “Bikramjeet
Singh Bhullar v. Yash Raj Films Private Limited & Ors.”, Bikramjeet
Singh Bhullar asked the Delhi High Court to temporarily stop streaming and
broadcasting the movie “Shamshera.” He did this because he said the movie
violated the rights to his script. The court declined the request. The court
said that ideas and themes cannot be protected by copyright. They also made it
clear that this statement does not change the current trial or the final
decision in Bhullar's copyright infringement case on its own. As for this case,
the court said, "The ideas in the plaintiff's script do not qualify for
copyright protection, especially when they are common or stock elements."
When the plot and the disputed film are put next to each other, they don't seem
to be very similar. There is no doubt about how important it is to acknowledge
the work of writers. However, the plaintiff has not made a strong case of
copyright infringement. As a result, the defendants can continue to show the
picture on OTT platforms without being stopped.[36]
The court observed that
the film's producers, including Yash Raj Films Private Limited, to show how
much money they are making from showing the movie on TV. Judge Singh said that
Bollywood movies often have themes like father-son relationships with similar
looks, children, birds, hot oil, horses, underground caves, and so on. If the
plaintiff's claim were granted, it would mean that they had exclusive rights to
their ideas, which goes against what the Supreme Court said in the RG Deluxe
case.[37]
The court also made it
clear that the differences between the script and the movie are more important
than the supposed parallels. The suspects said that comparing settings in North
India alone is not enough to be considered copyright infringement. The court
also said that these thoughts and phrases are not original and, according to
previous decisions, are often used by fiction writers. They are also called
doctrine of “Scènes à faire”, which do not require copyright protection.[38]
The idea-expression
paradox is one of the main ideas behind copyright. It shows the difference
between protecting ideas and letting people say what those ideas are. In
important court cases like “R.G. Anand v.
Deluxe Films and later ones like Bikramjeet Singh Bhullar v. Yash Raj Films
Private Limited &Ors”, courts have stressed how important this
difference is when deciding copyright infringement cases.[39]
9.
EXCEPTIONS
9.1 Doctrine of Merger.
Copyright law says that
facts and ideas can't be protected by copyright. The law only rewards creative
and unique ways of expressing facts and ideas by giving the person who did so
the right to use that expression entirely for a certain amount of time. But
sometimes, when the thought and the expression are the same, the courts use the
Doctrine of Merger. This principle says that copyright cannot be given when the
“idea and the expression” are linked
and the expression cannot be said apart from the idea. This means that if an
idea and a statement are so closely linked that the idea itself can be
protected by copyright, it would stop people from being creative, which is what
copyright law is supposed to do.[40]
According to the theory
of merger, there is only one way to say certain things. When this happens, the
idea and the expression often become the same thing, and the expression can't
be protected by copyright.[41]
9.2 Scenes to Faire
‘Scènes à faire’ means
‘obligatory scene’. This doctrine acknowledges that genres have inherent
elements.[42]
Therefore, any work in that genre must have those elements. Such presence does
not constitute copyright infringement. The U.S. case Cain v. Universal Pictures,[43]
this theory was established. This case held that similarities and incidental
qualities vital to the ambiance and spirit of any creative work or activity are
not copyrightable for originality.
10. CONCLUSION
AND SUGGESTIONS
In conclusion, Copyright
laws provide creators of original works, such as authors, musicians, and
artists, with the exclusive right to reproduce their work to foster creative
output. Copyright law is concerned with the author's production of their
creative works as well as the preservation of those works. This is its primary
focus. The author retains the right for a predetermined amount of time after
publication. The concept of copyright is predicated on the notion that creative
endeavors ought to be recognized and compensated, and that authors who generate
creative works ought to be able to make a living off of their talents.
Copyright strikes a balance between the interests of society as a whole in
fully participating in mankind's scientific and cultural progress.
Several high courts
have made it clear that no thoughts can be protected until they are expressed
in some way. Moreover, looking at how the Indian Judiciary has approached about
how the Idea Expression Dichotomy has worked, it has not been a negative one.
The courts have been able to define division, but they have shown that they are
inconsistent with how they use it.
According to the above
analysis of the research paper, Indian courts have been able to protect the
part of an idea that has already been said. Now that we are in the 20th
century, however, we can't ignore the need for unspoken ideas to have a good
chance of being protected. Just like illegally downloading, streaming, and
streaming software are killing big record stores in India, there's no promise
that unspoken ideas aren't being stolen and used without permission from the people
who came up with them. Thus, the researcher believes that Indian courts still
have a long way to go before they can find a balance between protecting
originality in literary works for both ideas and forms, not just one or the
other.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Statutes
·
The Civil Procedure Code, 1908
·
The Constitution of India, 1950
·
The Copyright Act, 1957
Books
·
Alka chawla, Law
of Copyright-Comparative Perspectives (10th edn., Lexis Nexis,
2013) 671
·
Avtar Singh, Intellectual
Property Rights (12th edn., Eastern book company, 2017) 35
·
B.L Waldera, Laws
relating to Intellectual Property Rights (7th edn., Universal
publications, 2015) 678
·
Elizabeth Verkey, Intellectual Property (6th edn., Eastern book company,
2015) 567
·
Mk Bhandari, Law
relating to Intellectual Property Rights (14th edn., Central law
publications, 2017) 765
·
S.R. Myneni, Patent
Right Creation and Registration (17th edn., Central law
publications, 2017) 884
·
Saurabh Bindal, Intellectual
Property Law: An Introduction (9th edn., Eastern book company,
2021) 997
Articles
·
Anuttama Ghose, ‘The Principle of
Idea-Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Laws: Legal scenario in India compared
to the Laws of USA and UK’, (2023) SSRN <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3722548>
·
Irania Atanasova, ‘Copyright Infringement
in Digital Environment’ (2029) <https://ideas.repec.org/a/neo/ecolaw/v1y2019i1p13-22.html>
·
K P Abhinava Sankar, ‘The idea-expression
dichotomy: Indianizing an international debate’ (2008) 3 JICLT 56, 67
·
Kai Tumbraegel & Roux de Villiers
‘Copyright Protection for the Non-Literal Elements of a Computer Program’
(200$) 3 International Journal of multi-disciplinary Educational Research 41
·
Shristi Choudhary, ‘Copyright Law in
India: An Analysis of the Copyright Act, 1957’ (2024) SSRN <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4694983>
·
Steven Ang, ‘The idea-expression dichotomy
and Merger doctrine in the copyright laws of the U.S. & U.K’, (2000) 114
IJ.L 43, 78
·
Tanvi Tewari, ‘The Idea-Expression
Dichotomy: Does this Dichotomy really exist?’ (2020) 2 NLUA Journal of
Intellectual Property Rights 113, 115
·
Tejaswini Patri, ‘The relevance and evolution
of the idea-expression dichotomy under copyright law’ (2024) 12 IJCRT 143, 145
·
Vaishali Sharma, ‘An Analytical study of
relevancy of Idea-Expression Dichotomy under copyright law’ (2023) 9 Journal of
Legal Studies and Research 34, 39
Dictionary
·
Cambridge
Dictionary (Online)
·
Merriam
Webster
·
Oxford
Dictionary (Online)
Journals
·
ILI
Law Review
·
Indian
bar Review
·
Indian
Journal of Applied Research
·
Indian
journal of Law and Legal Research
·
International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention
·
Journal
of the Indian Law Institute
International instruments
·
The
Berne Convention, 1886
·
The
Trade Related Aspects on Intellectual Property Rights, 1995
·
The
World Intellectual Property Organization 9WIPO) Convention, 1967
Magazines
·
Economic
& Political Weekly
Websites
[1] Shristi Choudhary, ‘Copyright Law
in India: An Analysis of the Copyright Act, 1957’ (2024) SSRN <https://ssrn.com/abstract=4694983>
[2] The Copyright Act, 1957, s. 13
[3] The Copyright Act, 1957, s. 14
[4] Avtar Singh, Intellectual Property Rights (7th
edn., Eastern Book Company, 2017) 35
[5] Saurabh Bindal, Intellectual Property Law: An Introduction (6th edn.,, Eastern Book Company,
2021) 997
[6] Avtar Singh, Intellectual Property Rights (12th edn., Eastern Book Company,
2019) 742
[7] Dr. M.K Bhandari, Laws relating to Intellectual Property
Rights (9th edn., Lexis
Nexis, 2020) 789
[8] Dr. B.L Wadera, Laws relating to Intellectual Property
Rights (5th edn., Universal Publications, 2016) 993
[9] Irania Atanasova, ‘Copyright
Infringement in Digital Environment’ (2029) <https://ideas.repec.org/a/neo/ecolaw/v1y2019i1p13-22.html>
[10] Kai Tumbraegel & Roux de
Villiers ‘Copyright Protection for the Non-Literal Elements of a Computer
Program’ (200$) 3 International Journal of multi-disciplinary Educational
Research 41
[11] Vaishali Sharma, ‘An Analytical
study of relevancy of Idea-Expression Dichotomy under copyright law’ (2023) 9
Journal of Legal Studies and Research 34, 39
[12] Tanvi Tewari, ‘The Idea-Expression
Dichotomy: Does this Dichotomy really exist?’ (2020) 2 NLUA Journal of
Intellectual Property Rights 113, 115
[13] MANU/ DE/6996/2023
[14] [2007] 13 Addl SCR 182
[15] [1978] 4 SCC 118
[16] Anuttama Ghose, ‘The Principle of
Idea-Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Laws: Legal scenario in India compared
to the Laws of USA and UK’, (2023) SSRN <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3722548>
[17] Id. at 14
[18] The Copyright Act, 1957, s. 13
[19] Id. at 16
[20] K P Abhinava Sankar, ‘The
idea-expression dichotomy: Indianizing an international debate’ (2008) 3 JICLT 56, 67
[21] supra note 1 at 14
[22] [1879] 101 U.S. 99
[23] Id. at 20
[24] supra note 2 at 20
[25] [1894] 3 Ch 420
[26] [1982] 4 Ch 119
[27] Id. at 24
[28] Id. at 24
[29] [1900] 69 LJ Ch 699
[30] [1979] R.P.C 551
[31] Id. at 28
[32] AIR 1978 SC 613
[33] Id. at 30
[34] AIR 1988 KER 39
[35] (2002) 25 PTC 1
[36] CS (COMM) 438/2022
[37] supra note 3 at 30
[38] Steven Ang, ‘The idea-expression
dichotomy and Merger doctrine in the copyright laws of the U.S. & U.K’,
(2000) 114 IJ.L 43, 78
[39] Id. at 36
[40] Tejaswini Patri, ‘The relevance
and evolution of the idea-expression dichotomy under copyright law’ (2024) 12
IJCRT 143, 145
[41] Id. at 38
[42] supra note 4 at 36
[43] [1942] 47 F. Supp. 1013