Editing Idea–expression distinction (section)

==''Scènes à faire''==
Some courts have recognized that particular ideas can be expressed effectively only by using certain elements or background. There are certain archetypal characters and even types of scenes that are frequently used by authors, due to both necessity to conform to genre conventions or even because the intended audience expects such archetypes.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Said |first1=Zahr K. |title=Grounding the Scènes à Faire Doctrine |journal=Houston Law Review |date=2023 |volume=61 |page=350 |url=https://houstonlawreview.org/article/92128-grounding-the-scenes-a-faire-doctrine}}</ref> The [[French language|French]] name for the doctrine that protects the use of these archetypes is called ''[[Scènes à faire]]''.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Said |first1=Zahr K. |title=Grounding the Scènes à Faire Doctrine |journal=Houston Law Review |date=2023 |volume=61 |page=351 |url=https://houstonlawreview.org/article/92128-grounding-the-scenes-a-faire-doctrine}}</ref> Therefore, even the expression in these circumstances is unprotected, or extremely limited to verbatim copying only. This is true in the United Kingdom and most [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth countries]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Lai |first=Stanley|year=2000|chapter=Chapter V: The Position of ''Scenes a Faire'' in English Law|title=The Copyright Protection of Computer Software in the United Kingdom|location=Oxford, England|publisher=Hart Publishing|isbn=978-1-84113-087-3}}</ref>{{rp|54–56}}

The term "Scenes a faire" means "obligatory scene", a scene in a play that the audience "has been permitted to foresee and to desire from the progress of the action; and such a scene can never be omitted without a consequent dissatisfaction."  The term was applied to copyright law in ''[[Cain v. Universal Pictures]]'' (1942), where the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of California]] ruled that "... similarities and incidental details necessary to the environment or setting of an action are not the material of which copyrightable originality consists."{{sfn|Lai|2000|p=52}}
The concept has been used by U.S. and U.K. courts.{{sfn|Lai|2000|p=54}}
The term is used both in the sense of a scene that follows inevitably from a situation,
or a standard scene that is always included in a particular genre of work.{{sfn|Lai|2000|p=53}}
Another court said "Under the ... doctrine of ''[[scènes à faire]]'', courts will not protect a copyrighted work from infringement if the expression embodied in the work necessarily flows from a commonplace idea."<ref>{{cite book |year=2012 |last=Iyer|first=Vivek|title=Ghalib, Gandhi & the Gita |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PLO8mq8aSBkC&pg=PA53 |access-date=2012-06-19|publisher=Polyglot Publications London|isbn=978-0-9550628-3-4|page=53}}</ref>
The concept has been extended to computer software, where some aspects may be dictated by the problem to be solved, or may be standard programming techniques.{{sfn|Lai|2000|p=59}}

In the [[United States]] it is recognized that certain background elements are universal or at least commonplace in some types of work. For example, in ''[https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/6c605599-e756-4b40-affc-e373b1061c45/?context=1530671 Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc.]'', 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986), the [[Second Circuit]] said that in a film about cops in the South Bronx it was inevitable that the scenery would include drunks, stripped cars, prostitutes, and rats. In ''[[Gates Rubber Company v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., et al|Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd.]]'', 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993), the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|Tenth Circuit]] held that hardware standards and mechanical specifications, software standards and compatibility requirements, computer manufacturer design standards, target industry practices and demands, and computer industry programming practices were unprotectable ''scènes à faire'' for computer programs. The principle must have a limit, however, so that something is outside the ''scènes à faire'' doctrine for South Bronx movies. In cases that, "held that scenes a faire . . . are not copyrightable," outcomes were due to a, "failure of the author to add anything original to the stock idea, rather than upon the impossibility of expressing the stock idea in a new form."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Samuels |first=Edward |date=Winter 1989 |title=THE IDEA-EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY IN COPYRIGHT LAW |journal=Tennessee Law Review |volume=56 |page=384 |via=LexisNexis}}</ref>