Idea Expression Dichotomy

Copyright is protection in Form and not in Idea

Copyright is a right given to or derived from works and it is not a right in novelty only of ideas. Copyright
essentially protects the works of an author or creator and prevents others from copying such original work. It
does not, however, bar others from coming to the same result through an independent process.

There exists no copyright in ideas. Copyright subsists only in the material form to which the ideas are
translated. Two authors may have the same idea for a book. However the way they express themselves i.e.,
the way they put down their idea in a tangible form is what that makes a difference. It is the form in which a
particular idea, which is translated that is, protected.

The primary reason for granting protection to expressions and not ideas is to protect the free flow of
ideas. Ideas are too valuable to be copyrighted.

The copyrighting of ideas would eventually bring creativity and innovation to a standstill. It is for this reason
that the freedom to copy ideas is central to the structure of copyright law.

How does one distinguish between an Idea and an Expression?

The idea-expression dichotomy poses a major challenge in distinguishing between the two. The absence of a
statutory provision necessitates reliance on several case laws that attempt at chalking out a clear distinction
between the two.

Where does the problem arise?

Not all ideas can be expressed creatively. Often, there are ideas that can be expressed in only a particular
way. In such a case, copyrighting the expression would amount to the copyrighting of the idea that would in
turn stall the free flow of ideas.

In every such case where the expression is necessary to effectively communicate an idea, courts apply the
Merger Doctrine to find that no copyright subsists. The Merger Doctrine primarily seeks to address the point
where ideas and expressions converge.

An important case in this regard is that of Morrisey v. Proctor & Gamble Co. This case primarily dealt with a
competition/contest and whether its rules are a subject for copyright. The court held that the idea of the contest
is merged with the rules. Copyrighting the rules would amount to copyrighting the idea of the contest and
therefore the rules are not a subject matter of copyright.