Recently in idea Category
October 28, 2009
The Standard of Review. As for your question, the standard of review is best described by Judge Learned Hand in Nichols v. Universal Pictures in which the author of the popular play, Abie's Irish Rose, sued the producers of a movie, The Cohens and the Kellys. Both plots involved children of Irish and Jewish families who marry secretly because their parents are prejudiced. At the end of each work there is a reconciliation of the families, based upon the presence of a grandchild. Beyond that, the works had little in common except for ethnic clichés.
The Abstractions Test. Judge Hand established a standard to separate the idea from the expression. He used the term "abstraction," which is a process of removing or separating something. He stated: "Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out." In other words, every narrative work is built around an underlying idea, in this case the basic plot summary. The idea may be similar to other plots (BTW, many people believe there are only between seven and 30 basic plots), but the author's embellishments -- the series of details and incidents that separate the idea from similar plots -- trigger copyright protection. Copyright only extends to each author's unique expression, not the underlying idea.
Still in Use. Judge Hand's abstractions test is still applied for plots (and was even modified for application in software infringements). In Litchfield v. Spielberg a writer sued the makers of the movie E.T. -- The Extra Terrestrial. The writer claimed that the film infringed her musical play, Lokey From Maldemar, a social satire designed to "illustrate the disunity of man, divided by egotism." The district court applied the abstractions test and determined that the only similarity in both works was the basic plot line -- aliens with powers of levitation are stranded on earth, pursued by authoritarian characters and finally bid their earthly friends farewell. Again, these similarities (sometimes known as nonliteral similarities) are ideas and are generally not protectable.
Our Takeaway Points ... Nobody but a judge or arbitrator can safely tell you whether you've taken the "expression" of a plot or the "idea" of a plot, but you will likely run into problem if you have a high profile work and you're slavishly copying the plot (and/or characters) of a well known work. For example, that's what happened in the copyright battle between Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica (Chaim Green R.I.P.).
Want more information about copyright law? Check out Stephen Fishman's The Copyright Handbook: What Every Writer Needs to Know.
August 21, 2009
Where Do I Find a Prototype Maker?
Why Not Hire an Artist?
If you are seeking a license the Dear Rich Staff suggests that you consider hiring an artist instead of a prototype maker. Professional CAD drawings will provide a professional appearance for your product without the expense of preparing a prototype. As for finding a prototype maker (sometimes referred to as "model maker") use search terms such as "prototype maker" and "model maker" at Google. You can learn more about prototype preparation here.
The Legal Notes
If you intend to seek proprietary rights to your product be aware (1) you have one year from the first public display to file a patent application or provisional patent application; and (2) you should enter into an agreement with your prototype maker assuring your ownership of the final prototype. You can find examples of these agreements in our book, Profit From Your Idea.
June 19, 2009
Idea to 'Monetize' Large Asset
What If They Won't Answer Your Emails?
Be prepared for the fact that most companies are wary of signing an agreement with someone they don't know -- or they may make you sign an agreement waiving any claims. This doesn't mean you can't trust them; just that they're suspicious of strangers. The best chance for success is to find a person at the company who will speak with you, or find a person who knows someone at the company, or find an agent who represents people in your position. It's only through these people-to-people contacts that any business will get done. There are some suggestions on how to pitch, an evaluation agreement, and an agent agreement in the book, Profit From Your Idea. As for the homemade protective measures like mailing copies to yourself, don't bother unless you enjoy the thrill of getting mail. Finally, the Dear Rich staff understands your desire to speak in current biznez lingo but 'monetizing' is inappropriate slang for making a profit. (Its actual meaning is more specific.) When making a pitch, we recommend plain English.
June 12, 2009
Sports Licensing: Is the System Rigged?
Dear Rich: I have a great idea for a sports team related product and have started looking into a patent. I looked into licensing and can't even believe that it's legal to put the restrictions on that these teams do. I don't want to cheat these universities and professional teams out of their money on these things but they make it impossible to make a new product, not similar to anything they are offering without going through one of their existing suppliers or having an exemplary record of mass producing products similar. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LITTLE GUY? WHY CAN I ONLY SELL MY IDEA? WHY CAN'T I OBTAIN LICENSING THEN GET INVESTORS ONBOARD? THE SYSTEM IN LICENSED PRODUCTS STINKS AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. Ouch ... our ears are ringing. We understand you're angry, but in the future, you may want to consider the intonation of your query before hitting the "send" button. Okay, assuming your question is 'Why is it so hard to license products to a university or professional sports franchise?," the short answer is that as a general rule, the bigger the enterprise, the less that the enterprise wants to hear from outsiders, a principle sometimes referred to as "NIH." (As you probably know, sports licensing is a big enterprise .... so big that even reading about it can be expensive.)
There is, however, a logic behind the closed-door approach of the sports licensing industry. Like the toy licensing business, sports licensing execs don't want to deal with strangers or companies that can't meet manufacturing numbers, accept legal requirements, or provide quality assurance. This is especially true in a depressed business climate when risk-aversion is the name of the game. (Although that doesn't stop sports-licensing of some crazy concepts -- check out the MLB-licensed "fan" coffins, above.) As you may be aware, the road you are seeking -- attempting to patent your invention, get investors and manufacture the product yourself (can you deal with foreign manufacturers?) -- is littered with unhappiness and bankruptcies. The Dear Rich staff advises that you reconsider the idea of pitching your invention (hopefully, patented) to an existing manufacturer or agent -- that is, a middle entity who already has cachet with the teams. That's the way many "little guys" get started in the sports licensing world -- by slowly building trust with existing companies.
June 9, 2009
Board Games, the Bible, and Canada
Hi Rich: I am a Canadian and in 1999 I approached a company (not a board game or toy company) to find out if they wanted to produce a board game. The prototype I sent them was based on a Biblical story and required that the player answer a series of questions to win. I have some emails from this company that I saved that clearly show that I was working with them on the game. After a year of having no contract and no clear answers, I got agitated and contacted the office manager (supposedly the employee's boss) and I was then told that since this company was not a board game producer, they would not be interested in pursuing this with me, but if I did have it produced, they would consider it. Long story short, this company along with their book publisher did in fact produce a board game for kids remarkably similar to mine, although there are some differences. The board itself looks very similar, and the strategy and method of winning are the same. Their board is in a different case and they use a "pop up" device but there are still many similarities. Is this a copyright infringement? Am I protected in Canada just having the idea or did I legally need to do something else to protect my idea?
