# What does copywrite cover? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 25, 2006, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-copywrite-cover/346051 "2006-02-25T08:08:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-copywrite-cover/346051/1 "2006-02-25T08:08:16Z")
I see from the local paper today that the authors of Holy Blood and the Holy Grail are suing the author of the Da Vinci Code for copying ideas and structure from their book. Is that likely to work? Can I take someones book and rewrite it, changing names etc but keeping the plot the same? from [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2057713,00.html](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2057713,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-copywrite-cover/346051/2 "2006-02-25T08:13:29Z")
Copyright — the right to copy. ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-copywrite-cover/346051/3 "2006-02-25T13:37:26Z")
er thanks Walloon for stating the obvious and also indirectly pointing out that I cant spell copyright. Any one with more useful information? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-copywrite-cover/346051/4 "2006-02-25T13:57:14Z")
It protects expressions, but not ideas. [http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise9.html](http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise9.html) [http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html](http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html) [http://www.edwardsamuels.com/copyright/beyond/articles/ideapt1-20.htm](http://www.edwardsamuels.com/copyright/beyond/articles/ideapt1-20.htm) [http://www.edwardsamuels.com/illustratedstory/isc7.htm](http://www.edwardsamuels.com/illustratedstory/isc7.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-copywrite-cover/346051/5 "2006-02-25T14:17:20Z")
Ahhhh. The article is about UK copyright law. Apparently, the idea/expression distinction exists there too. [http://austlii.edu.au/itlaw/articles/ALJ\_Autodesk.html;](http://austlii.edu.au/itlaw/articles/ALJ_Autodesk.html;) [http://www.kaltons.co.uk/articles/115-1.cfm](http://www.kaltons.co.uk/articles/115-1.cfm) But apparently the distinction is not applied as rigorously as it is in the US: > [@](#): > > There is a continuing debate in the UK about the extent to which the UK courts > should recognise and develop the idea/expression dichotomy. In the US the > dichotomy has express statutory recognition: “in no case does copyright > extend to any idea…” (section 102 (b), Copyright Act 1976). In the UK the > principle is only given limited recognition through case law. Indeed in a > House of Lords decision of November last year (Designers Guild v. Russell > Williams), currently the leading case on artistic copyright and which > concerned fabric designs, their Lordships appeared to severely limit the > application of the dichotomy. > > Designers Guild involved two fabric designs “inspired by” the work of Matisse. > The designs were similar but in no sense identical although similar > techniques had been used in each case. The plaintiffs were successful in > claiming copyright infringement at trial and in the House of Lords, having > previously lost in the Court of Appeal. In the House of Lords, Lord Hoffmann > made clear that, in his view every element in an artistic work is in a sense > the expression of an idea on the part of the artist. It was the artist’s > choice, for example, to paint stripes rather than polka dots, to use one > colour and brush technique rather than another, etc. According to Lord > Hoffmann the expression of these ideas was protected by copyright to the > extent to which they form a “substantial part” of the work. [http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/2002-December/008348.html](http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/2002-December/008348.html) ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-copywrite-cover/346051/6 "2006-02-25T17:39:24Z")
In the U.S. the answer to the OP is a resounding “it depends.” Ideas are not copyrightable, but merely changing “names etc.” would never fly, unless doing so made it an obvious parody of the original work. And so on. The modern fantasy novel industry relies heavily on rewriting the same basic text over and over, with minor variations of theme, character, and plot. This is completely legal. You’d have to extract huge amounts of an original to make it a copyright offense, but where the line is drawn depends entirely on the individual circumstances. No set rules exist. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-copywrite-cover/346051/7 "2006-02-25T17:45:09Z")
Generally, you can’t copyright an idea, and that House of Lords case is opening a very ugly can of worms. In general, though, the ideas and plot of a book can be reused without fear of infringement For instance, if you wrote a book about a young, talented wizard who wears glasses and who is unaware of how powerful he is and is educated by top wizards about how best to use his potential, you wouldn’t have to worry about being sued by Neil Gaiman.\* These suits happen often: someone claims their book was stolen by someone who wrote something similar (there was one about **Finding Nemo** , for instance). They usually go nowhere. This case, at least, can prove that Brown was aware of the book, but it doesn’t matter: authors reuse plot ideas all the time. \*Whose **Books of Magic** has a lot of the elements that Rowling used in **Harry Potter**. Neil is too nice to even consider suing, but he has stated that, just because there are some clear similarities, it’s not infringement. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-copywrite-cover/346051/8 "2006-02-25T18:18:24Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > These suits happen often: someone claims their book was stolen by someone who wrote something similar (there was one about **Finding Nemo** , for instance). They usually go nowhere. This case, at least, can prove that Brown was aware of the book, but it doesn’t matter: authors reuse plot ideas all the time. _See_, [Chapter 7](http://www.edwardsamuels.com/illustratedstory/isc7.htm) (cited above) for a discussion of substantial similarity with lots of examples. ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-copywrite-cover/346051/9 "2006-02-27T09:49:26Z")
thanks for the useful replies! I have a much clearer idea of whats involved now. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-copywrite-cover/346051/10 "2006-02-27T16:37:47Z")
As this [article](http://www.thebookseller.com/?pid=4&did=17795) from _The Bookseller_ points out, there is a possible precedent in English law from the 1980 case in which Trevor Ravenscroft successfully sued James Herbert, which, oddly enough, centred around Ravenscroft’s _The Spear of Destiny_, a book which notoriously surpasses even _The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail_ as pseudohistorical nonsense. (But the forthcoming case really is one of those where you want both sides to lose.) ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2006, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-copywrite-cover/346051/11 "2006-02-27T17:21:08Z")
The few references to that case I’ve been able to dig up suggests that Herbert did “substantial” copying, a fact even admitted by his own publisher. Dan Brown, OTOH, appears to be the victim of a nuisance suit generated by the huge amount of money he’s made\*. I can’t believe for a second he will lose, even under English law. The Herbert suit does not appear to be a precedent since he took actual expression rather than just ideas. - Here’s [another guy](http://davincicrock.blogspot.com/) who can’t understand the difference between expression and ideas.