Feb 20, 2014, 16:21 pm
The concept of the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright law has essentially served as a long-running joke. The concept is that you can't copyright a general idea or concept, only the specific expression an author develops. For instance, you might have the idea to write a story about a group of four friends traveling on a journey together, bonding and accomplishing tasks. That idea cannot be copyrighted, but the somewhat like expressions known as The Wizard of Oz and Stand By Me can. They're similar in only the most general ways, but both can coexist without the need of lawyers and suits. Unfortunately, we've seen example after example of this dichotomy being actively ignored in the more noble interest in making tons of money off of another person's expression. Some folks seem to think that they can own an idea.
Well, let's make room on that list of folks for Sachin Gadh and Jonathan Sender, who are suing Spike Jonze for his film Her, which they say he stole from them. Giving the story a bit of the old conspiratorial air is the fact that the writers originally pitched their screenplay, called Belv, to the same agency that represents Jonze. They were told at the time that the agency didn't accept unsolicited manuscripts (this is extremely common). So, what evidence do Gadh and Sender offer for the theft of their mind-gasms?
Finally, I'm at a complete loss as to why the authors decided to include that last bit that essentially describes how these films are totally different. One involves a computer offering solace after a failed relationship, the other turns into a wingman after what I can only assume is an unfortunate microwave popcorn mishap. That's like comparing Eat, Pray, Love and Hitch. They aren't the same.
The point of all this is that some understanding must be reached that any similarities you might struggle to find between two expressions don't amount to copyright infringement. Even as some unfortunate rulings have been made in courts essentially protecting ideas like characters and settings, when you have to work this hard to liken two expressions, you don't have a case.
Permalink
source
Well, let's make room on that list of folks for Sachin Gadh and Jonathan Sender, who are suing Spike Jonze for his film Her, which they say he stole from them. Giving the story a bit of the old conspiratorial air is the fact that the writers originally pitched their screenplay, called Belv, to the same agency that represents Jonze. They were told at the time that the agency didn't accept unsolicited manuscripts (this is extremely common). So, what evidence do Gadh and Sender offer for the theft of their mind-gasms?
Quote:The legal papers stated, "In both 'Her' and 'Belv' the main character carries around the love interest in his front shirt pocket." It continued, "Both 'Her' and "Belv' examine the human psyche through interactions between the character and the computer." In addition to the two examples, the document also cited, "The main character in 'Her' is heartbroken after a failed relationship and seek solace in a computer. In 'Belv' a cell phone comes to life after a microwave mishap and becomes a witty wing man for dating."Let's take these in order. First, the example of where a character carries the device that contains the digital being that is his love interest is silly. I mean, if you had to depict someone carrying around technology with them, how would you do it? There's, like, five places where that can happen, assuming we don't want to get gross with this. As for both films examining the human psyche by interacting with a computer, take five seconds to count up how many films you could say did the exact same thing and see what your total is. I made it to four, including 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Matrix, S1m0one, and The Terminator. Then I mentally added the book I wrote three years ago, Digilife, to the equation because it's both a great example of the same concept and it serves as a wonderful reminder to all of you that you can buy it in the Insider Shop.
Finally, I'm at a complete loss as to why the authors decided to include that last bit that essentially describes how these films are totally different. One involves a computer offering solace after a failed relationship, the other turns into a wingman after what I can only assume is an unfortunate microwave popcorn mishap. That's like comparing Eat, Pray, Love and Hitch. They aren't the same.
The point of all this is that some understanding must be reached that any similarities you might struggle to find between two expressions don't amount to copyright infringement. Even as some unfortunate rulings have been made in courts essentially protecting ideas like characters and settings, when you have to work this hard to liken two expressions, you don't have a case.
Permalink
source