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 >