What Idea/Expression Dichotomy? Microsoft Sued For Having Sorta Similar Commercials
from the oh-come-on dept
Copyright law is supposed to have an idea/expression dichotomy, in which the copyright only covers the specific expression, and not the idea. We're often told this when we worry about the expansion of copyright law being used to block out ideas. And yet, as we've explained in the past, it's not clear there's any real idea/expression dichotomy when it comes to copyright. That's because, if a judge doesn't like something, he or she will often come up with some convoluted explanation for how the "expression" covers the basic idea.And, of course, once people begin to realize that there's no real idea/expression dichotomy, lawsuits begin to show up pushing the boundaries even further. Take for example, this lawsuit, in which a novelty gift firm called Cellrderm has sued Microsoft and its ad agency, CP&B, for "copying" some of its commercials. You can see the four commercial below, showing the (terribly produced) Cellrderm commercials, followed by the supposedly "infringing" Microsoft version:
Microsoft, Bedroom ad:
Cellerdrm, Urinal ad:
Microsoft, Urinal ad:
The Microsoft Commercials copy both the sequence of events and the character interplay found in the Cellrderm Commercials.... The Microsoft Commercials also copy other copyrightable expression, including but not limited to clothing, gestures, character appearance, camera angles, and other visual elements from the Cellrderm Commercials.Yes, you read that right. They're complaining that the clothing and gestures in these commercials was copyrightable. One hopes that a judge will tell Cellrderm to stick to gag gifts, and get out of the gag lawsuit business.
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: commercials, copyright, expression, idea
Companies: cellrderm, microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The troll Cellrderm could also sue other parties that are favored. Then would it all of a sudden change from "Don't care" to "Do care"?
What if Cellrderm sues Apple. Oh, wait. Don't care. Better example. What if Cellrderm sues Google?
Google: Partner with everyone, sue no one.
Apple: Partner with no one, sue everyone.
Microsoft: Backstab partners, sue everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moreover, identifying the clothing and gestures as things that have allegedly been copied doesn't mean they are claiming copyright in the clothing or gestures independently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The Microsoft Commercials also copy other copyrightable expression, including but not limited to clothing, gestures..."
They are claiming that the clothing and the gestures are copyrightable. For there to be any standing to sue, they have to claim some form of ownership. They can't patent the clothing and gestures. I doubt they have a trademark on them. Copyright, especially since they specially assert that such things are copyrightable, seems to be what they're asserting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Rather, they might be saying that the "other copyrightable expression" refers to the particular combination of clothing, gestures, etc. put together in their video amounts to protectable expresssion.
That is a much more supportable viewpoint than saying a particular gesture is protected by copyright, and I think it makes more sense to read that language in that manner (i.e., putting forth a relatively noncontroversial argument) rather than reading it in a manner that suggests a rather extreme and hard-to-support argument (i.e., every particular individual gesture in the video is protected by copyright).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I agree w/you on that one. They're likely saying that this combination of ideas together is copyrightable expression.
But I still think that's wrong. Whether we're talking about a general idea or a specific idea, we're still talking about the idea. It's pretty clear that Microsoft, as annoying as I find them, did NOT copy the specific expression, which is all that's copyrightable.
This is less akin to me photoshopping a Harry Potter novel and more similar to Edward Scissorshands and Frankenstein. Similar idea, different expression....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, that's all any textual work is, after all, a combination of unprotectable letters into an original expression.
Also, in terms of copyright a "specific idea" might actually be "expression." The difference between "idea" and "expression" is not really one of kind, but of degree of abstraction. General/vaque = idea and specific/concrete = expression, and drawing the line in the middle ground is hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It MIGHT be a bit different if these characters in the commercials were more fully fleshed out into some kind of identifiable expression. But you can't combine clothing, gestures, and/or motivations without being REALLY specific and expect to have something copyrightable. As an example:
You have a young man who dresses in a green ranger's outfit and a green pointy cap, shoots a bow and arrow while also having a dagger, and collects money from bad guys all in an effort to help a young maiden. Who is he?
Robin Hood?
Link from the Zelda series?
Both characters are copyrightable (probably, although Robin Hood I believe is in the public domain by now as a character), but the above description is not, even though it combines all the things these commercials do....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, there is plenty of case law that weighs in on this issue and it is not limited to fictional characters or setting.
I'm not sure why you're focusing on "character" here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps even more disturbing, if legal changes proceed according to the mafiaa's plans, the CEO's of Microsoft could find themselves slammed into a prison cell for stuff like this. Not that I have a lot of sympathy for them, but still...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd agree, save for the gratuitous use of the fabled "side-boob" in the first ad. That alone puts it over the top....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, why do you hate rainbows, puppies, and the smiles of children. While loving both hitler and satan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"...why do you hate rainbows, puppies, and the smiles of children. While loving both hitler and satan?"
I hate rainbows because they only reveal an extremely small section of the electromagnetic spectrum. So what if that section is the only one visible to the naked eye? That, and it means the rain is gone; if you've been in Texas during the summer dry-spells, then you'd understand.
I hate puppies simply because they garner the adoration of countless beautiful women that have shown the least bit of interest in me; adorable as I may be.
I hate the smiles of children, only when they are about to do something that they are fully aware to be against my wishes.
I love both Hitler and Satan simply because I have always been taught to love everyone. That doesn't mean I have to like what they do. Judge the actions, not the person; for only God can know the person's heart and judge fairly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft wouldn't have any ideas if they didn't steal them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Microsoft wouldn't have any ideas if they didn't steal them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
camera angles
I'd be worried if they were getting too creative with the camera angles on the urinal ad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean, the Supreme Court said so, and hasn't recanted, so it's not really up for debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
At least they finally moved (or at least some panels have moved) the "extrinsic/intrinsic" test over to more closely comport with the abstraction/filtration/comparison type tests used by 2d. cir., 10th cir. and others.
Only Eigth Circuit is worse in general, since they adopted the extrinsic/intrinsic test from the Ninth Circuit but have yet (last time I checked) to contradict the notion that similarity of ideas should be evaluated for infringement purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, they have some explicit cases saying ideas are not protectable and stuff and applying merger, but it always blew my mind that a court would be willing to start off a copyright analysis explicitly stating that they are looking at similarity of stuff that's not protectable (even if that's not quite what they are actually doing in some cases).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're not the same...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think they got what they wanted....
Everyone on this thread looked at the ads, and we are all talking about it.
I would say it's a huge success....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think they're just jealous that Microsoft's commercials are actually more coherent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the ads themselves
And what is the microsoft ad saying? Was my understanding that microsoft phones suck so bad that you wouldn't want to spend more time using them than absolutely necessary correct?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
improvement of expressions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good claim
Hope they lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]