Hello,
You say that the expression of the idea is the form it takes. This is true
but at times patents could be set to give monopoly to persons who developed
a particular idea, or even to be ambiguous, an abstract concept that may
take different forms. This is still the case. This may not apply to
satirical newspapers today, perhaps because satire has been with us longer
than copyright law. But certainly people can attempt to patent anything
that has value, simply for being a conceptor even a banal phrase that can
take shape in many forms. Alas, we can learn something from Paris Hilton,
who patented ³Thatıs hot²... And letıs not forget Mc Dıs (Iım loving it),
or even better Donald Trump (Youıre Fired!)
This potentially means that if you were to publish in a commercial magazine
the phrases in a way that is clearly lucrative and making some reference to
the cultural understanding as defined by their corporate personas, then you
are likely to be sued for simple reference, regardless of the form it takes.
This is a real possibility even though their rights are defined by the
particular forms of dissemination they filed for; this is the case of
perfume, or electronics (Paris), or public broadcastings (Trump). If these
people decided to sue you, you would need a really good lawyer. Your
argument below is likely to be mute, even though, youıre absolutely right in
principle.
http://media.www.nwmissourinews.com/media/storage/paper1032/news/2007/09/13/
Features/thats.Hot.Heats.Up.The.Legal.Arena-2964920.shtml
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070913/news_lz1n13read.html
So based on this reality, the Onion could sue you if they felt that your own
satirical newspaper is too close to theirs, or is somehow riding on their
coattails, even if your ³form² of delivery is different and you never copy
anything directly from thembecause it is about their public standing as a
recognizable reference that we are talking about. While this might be
defined by the form the idea takes, as you explain, it would be something
that the politics of culture would ultimately decide. This is what makes
copyright law so complex, and lucrative.
Spike Lee sued Spike TV for simply using the word ³Spike² publicly as the
name of a Television network he found problematic. At this point, it is
about discourse: public recognition of a name. Spike Lee is not a TV
Channel (a form, as you claim), but a person who has public standing and is
himself a commodity.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,626412,00.html
So, of course youıre right in some ways, and I obviously did not disagree
with you when I defined how ideas and concepts attain cultural value. But
you will need a good lawyer, and a large bank account to prove your point in
court.
Eduardo Navas
On 6/18/08 9:16 PM, "Steve Lambert" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>
>
|
