Wow, I think if Michael and I had conversations about this we
wouldn't get anything done!
Speaking more practically (and I'm assuming you know this already but
just stating it for the sake of it) the expression of the idea is the
form it takes. So for example, the Onion makes a great satirical
newspaper. I can make my own satirical newspaper because the Onion
doesn't own the copyright on the idea/concept of a satirical
newspaper. But if I were to copy their articles and images wholesale
and reproduce them then I'd have a problem because the Onion can
copyright the expression of that idea - i.e. their articles and
images that they created.
Steve
--
Steve Lambert
http://visitsteve.com
Eyebeam Senior Fellow
http://eyebeam.org
On Jun 18, 2008, at 11:37 PM, Eduardo Navas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm intrigued by the "expression of the idea." I, myself, am also
> not a
> copyright lawyer, but can say based on my ongoing research about
> intellectual property that law practice is ultimately about the
> interpretation of laws that have been set to at times protect
> individuals,
> and at times, corporations. Lawrence Lessig would say that the
> latter is
> the privileged case, as most people in this list may know if
> they've read
> his arguments on intellectual property rights.
>
> But I ask this: How can an idea exist if it is not expressed? Its
> value is
> defined when the idea attains recognition in a culture as valuable,
> and as
> soon as it becomes valuable it becomes a commodity--especially today.
> Regarding Albers: both, the exact colors and words that Albers used
> can be
> copyrightable, fine. But at such moment you talk about hue as an
> idea. Hue
> is not an idea, but a concept. What is the difference? The
> difference is
> in that something that we've decided to call hue exists whether we
> are aware
> of it or not. Gravity is another example. Whether or not we name
> these
> elements that define our lives they will be there affecting us,
> named or
> unnamed. Theories of gravity and color theories have been
> developed, and
> these are commodities because they are expressed ideas developed to
> understand why it is that we are limited and defined by certain
> natural
> developments. For more on this, we could actually go back to
> Aristotle and
> study how terms are defined.
>
> The very best,
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
>> again, i'm not a copyright lawyer, but one of them that i have spoken
>> to explained it to me this way: "you cannot copyright an idea, only
>> the expression of an idea." so the exact colors and words that
>> albers
>> may have used are copyright, but the idea that hue has a value, or
>> that colors interact in defined was are not copyrightable. otherwise
>> every foundations studies course in the world would be breaking
>> copyright law. we are employing the principles, and the general
>> exercises, not the specific words and colors.
>>
>> yours,
>>
>> michael
>>
|