Perhaps the most fundamental precept of copyright law is commonly referred to as the "idea-expression dichotomy." Basically, it exists to say that ideas are not subject to copyright protection, while the expression of an idea will be (though the scope or breadth of the protection may vary under the specific circumstances). To illustrate: Learned Hand told us that "[a] comedy based upon conflicts between Irish and Jews, into which the marriage of their children enters, is no more susceptible of copyright than the outline of Romeo and Juliet." Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930). But, at some point, the specificity of the expression is distinguishable from the idea itself and might receive protection, albeit limited in scope.

Enter reality television. And The Format Recognition and Protection Association (FRAPA). FRAPA exists to promote the `recognition and protection' of formats, such as for reality television, especially in light of recent and ongoing litigation over shows like "The Next Great Champ" and "The Contender." But what should actually be protected by copyright? `A boxing reality television show,' such that no other network could ever have one? This seems absurd. Almost as absurd is protecting much about the specific way that the show is presented. Sure, logos, names, and phrases associated with a show ought to receive some protection, but that's trademark, not copyright. How many ways are there to have a boxing match? Granted, I'm not a boxing aficionado, but I don't think boxing can be `expressed' (to use the language of copyright law) in many different ways (if any but one) and still be recognized as boxing. FRAPA, it seems then, is just trying to erode any semblance of limiting copyright protection to expression, instead of ideas.

Categories: