Once Again, If Someone Has The Same Lame Story Idea You Had, It's Not Copyright Infringement
from the just-saying dept
Over the years, we've noted time and time again that people seem to think that if a book, movie or TV show comes out that has some basic similarities to a project they worked on, it simply must be copyright infringement. But, of course, copyright is supposed to apply to specific expression, rather than mere ideas. As we've noted, over the years, the line on this is unfortunately blurry, but for some cases, it's pretty clear that there's no infringement at all. Such is the case in a legal fight over a Disney movie (direct to video, of course) about a dog who helps Santa Claus. Three guys came up with a similar idea, which they wrote as a short story (it took three guys to come up with such an idea?) and then decided that the movie must have infringed on their copyright. It did not. I'll let THREsq's summary explain:The court acknowledged that the short story and the Disney movies had some elements in common: they all feature a threat to Christmas and a talking dog; all feature a dog named Paws, Santa Paws or Puppy Paws; they all have magical icicles; etc. There also is some similar dialogue. However, "apart from these abstract similarities, the remaining elements of the plaintiffs' short story and defendants' movies are substantially dissimilar," the court notes. "Furthermore, most of the aforementioned similarities between plaintiffs' short story and defendants' works are not protected by copyright law."While we can point to cases like this and say that the system is working, just the fact that such cases so often get filed shows a real problem. We've so built up this perception of copyright-over-all and "ownership society" that people really do think that anyone having the same idea as them must have infringed -- and are so sure of it that they're willing to go to court. That's a symptom of a much bigger problem with the system and the way people view it today.
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, expression, idea, stories
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is my idea, there are many ideas like it and they are all infringing bastards.
And in a world where rounded rectangles and colors are considered to be someones property, this makes total sense... and we should nuke that world from orbit and try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fairness to the plaintiffs
In fairness to the plaintiffs, they probably knew they weren't wronged. They're just trying to snag their piece of the pie in a broken system. They're only looters. And really, who can blame them? Everybody else is doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I lawyered artists out of the copyrights for their works that I put absolutely no effort into creating and I deserve to perpetually make money off of them forever!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This judgement says that two people can write SIMILAR stories without infringement. You know that vague and scary monopoly thing you keep talking about? If it exists, it's pretty small here.
So the biggest point is that copyright is both well defined in law and narrow in scope (in individual cases). Perhaps you should consider this the next time you want to try to generalize and claim copyright is stopping everything from happening. It's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sorry you don't see it that way, but your attitude that copyright is the ultimate authority by which all must abide really doesn't earn you any respect. It's hard to take your opposite stance seriously when you don't read the articles and act more religious than most pastors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
""While we can point to cases like this and say that the system is working"" the nice polite thing to say, before you create your own answer
""just the fact that such cases so often get filed shows a real problem. We've so built up this perception of copyright-over-all and "ownership society" that people really do think that anyone having the same idea as them must have infringed -- and are so sure of it that they're willing to go to court. That's a symptom of a much bigger problem with the system and the way people view it today.
AHH there it is, mikes real complaint, the only reason he wrote about it, so he can bash ont he copyright system, and the court system, he doesn't think people have a right to sue when they feel wronged, its the courts job to decide thelaw in thier case, not for mikey to say they don't get to go to court, thats why this is America, oh wait, mike must hate America too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many such cases "flood" the courts? You are assuming that it's a huge problem without evidence to back it up. Seems to me that Mike just cherry-picks a few cases, and then pretends like it's a huge problem. Of course, Mike is just mindlessly bashing IP. It's all he knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who are you to say anyone with a different opinion and a different values scale is against America, or any other country.
You might want to consider how much your loyalty goes to corporations interests rather than any state. And how much your value set is largely unbalanced for trade vs. freedom .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
LOL, that's funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you live in bizarre absolute land? Is there nothing in the middel for you? Is it all or nothing? Is it copyright has us all under it's thumb or abolish it?
" It's hard to take your opposite stance seriously when you don't read the articles and act more religious than most pastors."
Actually, as the other AC pointed out, I read fine. Mike may make a vague passing suggestion that this shows copyright might work out, but then he spends the rest of his time hammering it.
Perhaps you may want to remove your lips from Mike's internet butthole for a minute and read the whole story, not just the parts right above his virtual anus. Then perhaps you might understand that faint praise is usually used for damning things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That so much defines you I clicked on "funny".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly. And Mike left out some critical facts. The plaintiffs pitched a movie idea to Disney called "Santa Paws." The story line was that a dog called "Santa Paws" saves Christmas by using a magic crystal. Disney rejected the idea. But then years later they made a movie called "Santa Paws" where the story is that a dog named "Santa Paws" saves Christmas with a magic crystal.
So it's not these guys were just suing for no good reason. It's funny too because on these facts there's a good argument that big bad Disney is ripping off artists. I'm surprised Mike didn't harp on that. He was too busy pretending like the substantial similarity doctrine means there's no idea-expression dichotomy. These articles are so mindless and predictable. It's a shame that Mike's on anti-IP FUD autopilot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't copyright an idea is a very easy rule to remember.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP maximalists should take statistics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP maximalists should take statistics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP maximalists should take statistics
Also, you now have the mental image of a monkey running on a dream treadmill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It took three guys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possibly
I think those guys might have been standing too close to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
To borrow from a popular colloquialism...
There are no copyright maximalists in the dock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Got an Idea
And that's all I have in common in Twilight. So what I have the same elements; I didn't go into any specifications on what I just said and I do have a plot going for my story that is, as far as I know, different than what is in Twilight. As far as anyone knows, I got my own twist to the idea and, as someone who calls himself a "salvager," could work until I get every detail fixed and perfect to my vision. From there, I'll let the public decide if it's worth reading or am I'm going to be the next butt of the joke (joining E.L. James alongside Meyer)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Got an Idea
http://baconwrappedmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Lol-harry-potter-vs-twilight.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]