Court Notes That Empty 'The Office'-Style Workplace Concepts Not Subject To Copyright
from the copyright-needs-to-express-some-creative-work dept
In this age of increasingly aggressive use of intellectual property laws to try to take control over anything a competitor does in the name of competition, it's good to see at least a few judges pushing back. William Patry points us to a fascinating (and somewhat surprising) decision from a Massachusetts district court, involving two firms that produce workplace training manuals full of platitudes about management styles and concepts. One firm accused the other of stealing its ideas in creating its manuals. In fact, the second company was made up of ex-employees from the first company, and they admit to using what they learned at the first company in producing their own manual. However, the judge eloquently points out that these vapid concepts are not protected by copyright:"These works exemplify the sorts of training programs that serve as fodder for sardonic workplace humor that has given rise to the popular television show The Office and the movie Office Space. They are aggressively vapid-hundreds of pages filled with generalizations, platitudes, and observations of the obvious. While the workbooks' vague character may serve SMS well in the marketplace where it meets the demands of clients in different industries, they lack the “incident” that Judge Hand described as essential for differentiating the works from the underlying ideas. To the extent that the works contain expression, they are largely noncopyrightable because they are devoted to describing a process or because they are not original....The judge also notes that it is not illegal for the second firm to have based its work on the first firm's work, since it was not violating its copyright, but merely using the general and unprotected concepts to market its own, different, work:
At their creative zenith, these works translate common-sense communication skills into platitudinal business speak. One engaged in the industry might refer to the practice as jargonization. When an noncopyrightable idea is cloaked in a neologism such as "innovision," copyright law permits protection over the cloak, but not the concept or the process it describes."
"[A] defendant may legitimately avoid infringement by intentionally making sufficient changes in a work which would otherwise be regarded as substantially similar to that of the plaintiff's."This is an excellent reminder for those who seem to think that merely using the general concepts of someone else's work to create your own is somehow a violation of their IP rights. Competition in the marketplace is a good thing -- and some of that competition is always going to come from firms copying what the other has done and trying to improve on it. Limiting that competition hurts markets and hurts consumers.
For example, presuming Shakespeare's poetry was subject to copyright, an aspiring poet might purchase a collection of his sonnets and select one to serve as the inspiration for her own poem. She might select Sonnet 18 and attempt to emulate the poem's depiction of unwavering beauty by borrowing his iambic pentameter and even a word or short phrase, fully intending to write a poem that will usurp the Bard's virtual monopoly on romantic sonnets and win fame and fortune for herself in the process. The aspiring poet's motives are of no moment so long as the final product is not substantially similar to the original.
In this case, the Court has already found that, like the aspiring poet, Harwood and Moore used SMS's works to create ASP's. Even if they smuggled copies of SMS's programs and poured over them, redlining and rewriting, such "intentional dissimilarity" is permissible."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, empty platitudes, the office
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Stupid lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Best Part:
I love this Judge! This same argument can be used on everything related to so-called 'Intellectual Property' laws.
Translating that to a technical issue; the Judge just said that you can have an idea (such as a means to communicate wirelessly) but you can only legally-protect* the specific way YOU do it. If someone does it some other way, that's too bad. They can still do it. After all, they did it noticibly differently (keyword: noticibly).
* I say this instead of copyright as copyright != patent. The same argument is valid however.
I guess this should teach all those musicians as well. If someone takes your song, and does it in a different genere (Gym Class Hero's take on that Elton John classic comes to mind) it's possible they're allowed to.
After all the final product sounds *completely* different, and on paper will look different (barring the lyrics, partly anyways).
At the very least that beautiful phrase just goes to show that at least some judicial bastards see how stupid recent IP laws have been getting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Best Part:
But you can take the underlying ideas - love, suffering, joy, rhythm, percussion, and so on - and write your own vapid songs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Poured over them"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On The Other Hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On The Other Hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On The Other Hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great Judge but........
Now if we could just find judges that will stop releasing Level 3 sex offenders back into the communities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was going to say that...
If someone feels the need to claim exclusive intellectual property rights on the ability to talk complete and absolute bollocks, I wish them the very best of luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]