Functional Feature Exclusion.
FUNCTIONAL FEATURE EXCLUSION IN COPYRIGHT LAW
1. Introduction
Functional Feature Exclusion is a principle in copyright law that prevents the protection of features of a work that are dictated solely by function rather than creative expression.
Definition:
Features that are essential to the use, operation, or functionality of a work cannot be protected by copyright, even if they involve creative effort.
Rationale:
To prevent monopolization of functional elements.
To allow competition and innovation in utilitarian fields.
To distinguish copyright (expression) from patent law (functionality).
2. Statutory Basis (India)
Copyright Act, 1957:
Protects literary, artistic, musical, and cinematographic works.
Functional elements of useful articles are not protected unless separable as artistic features.
Section 13–14: Protect expression, not ideas or functionality.
Designs Act, 2000:
Functional features may be protected under patent or design law, not copyright.
3. Key Principles
Expression vs. Function:
Copyright protects artistic or literary expression, not functional necessity.
Merger Doctrine:
If there is only one or limited way to express an idea or function, the expression merges with the idea and is not protectable.
Separable Artistic Feature Test:
Functional objects can be copyrighted only if artistic features are separable from utility.
Software and UI:
Functional aspects of software, GUI, or code are often excluded from copyright protection.
4. Important Case Laws
CASE 1: Baker v. Selden (US, 1879)
Facts:
Selden wrote a book describing a system of accounting with forms.
Baker reproduced the forms in his own book.
Issue:
Can the functional accounting system be copyrighted?
Held:
No. Copyright protects expression (book text), not the functional system itself.
Significance:
Classical example of functional feature exclusion.
Systems, methods, or techniques are outside copyright.
CASE 2: Mazer v. Stein (US, 1954)
Facts:
Concerned statuettes on lamp bases, which had functional utility.
Held:
Court distinguished utilitarian function from artistic expression.
Artistic aspects of the statuette could be copyrighted if separable from function.
Significance:
Introduced separability test: artistic features can be protected, functional cannot.
CASE 3: Lotus v. Borland (1995, US)
Facts:
Lotus sued Borland for copying menu command structure in spreadsheet software.
Issue:
Are menu command structures copyrightable?
Held:
Functional elements (menu commands) are not copyrightable, even if creative effort is involved.
Significance:
Functional feature exclusion applies to software interfaces.
Functionality cannot be monopolized via copyright.
CASE 4: Satwant Singh v. Union of India (2001, India)
Facts:
Challenge over architectural drawings for public buildings.
Held:
Functional design elements dictated by utility and structural necessity are not protected.
Artistic expression (ornamental features) may be protected.
Significance:
Confirms functional exclusion in Indian law for architectural works.
CASE 5: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991, US)
Facts:
Telephone directory compilation was challenged for copyright protection.
Held:
Alphabetical arrangement (functional) cannot be copyrighted.
Only creative selections or annotations may be protected.
Significance:
Highlights merger of idea and function: purely functional arrangement excluded.
CASE 6: Atari v. North American Philips (1982, US)
Facts:
Video game graphics and gameplay elements were copied.
Held:
Functional aspects of gameplay (rules, mechanics) are not copyrightable.
Graphics/artwork may be protected.
Significance:
Functional feature exclusion applies in digital/interactive media.
CASE 7: Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (1994, US)
Facts:
Apple sued Microsoft for GUI elements in Windows.
Held:
Functional aspects of GUI (menus, icons) are not protectable.
Artistic elements of icons and artwork are protected.
Significance:
Applies functional feature exclusion to software and graphical interfaces.
5. Related Doctrines
Merger Doctrine – When function dictates expression, copyright fails.
Scenes à faire Doctrine – Elements standard to genre or dictated by function are excluded.
Separability Test – Artistic features separable from functional aspects can be protected.
6. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Facts | Functional Feature Exclusion Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Baker v. Selden | Accounting system forms | Functional system not copyrightable; only expression protected |
| Mazer v. Stein | Lamp statuettes | Artistic features separable from utility protected |
| Lotus v. Borland | Spreadsheet menu commands | Functional command structure not protected |
| Satwant Singh | Architectural drawings | Functional/structural elements excluded |
| Feist Publications | Telephone directory | Functional alphabetical arrangement not protected |
| Atari v. North American Philips | Video game | Gameplay mechanics (function) not protected |
| Apple v. Microsoft | GUI elements | Functional GUI features excluded; artistic icons protected |
7. Key Takeaways
Copyright protects expression, not functionality.
Functional Feature Exclusion prevents monopolization of utilitarian aspects.
Separability test allows protection for artistic elements in functional objects.
Applies to software, architecture, industrial design, and interactive media.
Merger and scenes à faire doctrines reinforce this principle.
RELATED Blog
comments