Copyright does not protect mere generalised 'ideas' ...
Introduction
- only the form in which an idea is expressed This well established legal principle has been once again been confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Nova Productions Limited -v- Bell Fruit Games Limited.
The Facts
The case in involved an allegation that two computer games, both based on pool, infringed Nova's copyright in its own computer game based on pool.
The proceedings were brought, even though the overall visual appearances of the three games were very different. Further, there had been no copying of the underlying program code for Nova's game.
The only points of similarity between the games arose because of either the adoption of commonplace features, or generalised ideas (such as the 'idea' of a pool cue pulsating at the same time as the power meter shown on the computer screen). Nevertheless, Nova brought a claim for copyright infringement, in respect of the alleged copying of these features and ideas.
The Law applied to the Facts
The Court of Appeal held there was no copyright (and thus no infringement) in the generalised ideas that had been adopted in respect of all three computer games.
The Court of Appeal explained that general ideas and principles that underlie a computer program are not protected by copyright – and the mere taking of them will not infringe copyright. Copyright only protects the 'expression' of an idea – not the idea itself.
By way of example, a drawing for the design of a particular plastic letterbox draught excluder will qualify for copyright protection as an 'artistic work'. However, this would not give the copyright owner a right to prevent others producing a drawing for a plastic letterbox draught excluder that looked very different in appearance. For a claim of copyright infringement to succeed, what has to be taken and copied is the form of expression of the idea – not the idea itself.
Further, as the Court of Appeal said, a written work consisting of a specification of the functions of an intended computer program will attract protection as a literary work – but the functions themselves do not. The functions can be copied and no copyright will be infringed. As Justice Pumfrey explained: "..merely making a program which will emulate another, but which in no way involves copying the program code or any of the program's graphics, is legitimate".
Conclusion
As with the 'Da Vinci Code' case ( Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh v The Random House Group Ltd),this case has yet again highlighted the difficulty of succeeding with a claim for non-textual copyright infringement and reminds everyone that such cases are not likely to succeed, except in very limited factual scenarios.
Interestingly, the Court of Appeal has also recently heard the 'Da Vinci Code' case on appeal. It remains to be seen whether the Court is prepare to reconsider the law in this area - and to potentially open the floodgates for a staggering number of claims for thefts of mere ideas. One doubts the Court will take such an approach.
Ashfords is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The information in this article is intended to be general information about English law only and not comprehensive. It is not to be relied on as legal advice nor as an alternative to taking professional advice relating to specific circumstances.
|
