This is sufficient to require the dismissal of the claim.
More than necessary, I will briefly refer later to a number of circumstantial evidence raised by the plaintiffs and show that in the absence of proof of similarity with respect to a protected way of expressing an idea, it does not change the conclusion that copyright infringement has not been proven. Finally, I will briefly address a counterargument raised by the defendants, which points to a difficulty in the conduct of the plaintiffs, who sought to rely on the "2017 edition" of the plaintiff's book published in 2014, while the existence of such an edition was not proven.
On copyright and the distinction between an idea and the way it is expressed
- For the purpose of the discussion before us, I will assume in the plaintiff's interest that her publications, as well as articles 8 and 9 that were transferred to Dr. Cordova prior to their publication, constitute an original "literary work", and that all the conditions in the law granting the plaintiff a "copyright" therein are met, in accordance with section 4(a) of the Copyright Law, 5768-2007 (hereinafter: the Copyright Law).
- At the same time, as is well known, the scope of copyright in a work does not extend to all of its components. For our purposes, as stated, it is important to distinguish between an idea that in itself is not the object of copyright and therefore does not receive the protection of copyright law, and the way it is expressed, which is protected. This distinction is currently enshrined in section 5(a)(1) of the Copyright Law, which deals with "the scope of a copyright in a work", which states as follows:
"A copyright in a work as stated in section 4 will not apply to any of the following, but the copyright will apply by way of expression:
- Idea;
- process and method of execution;
- mathematical concept;
- A fact or a fact;
- Today's news.
This is one of the basic distinctions in copyright law, which also existed in laws that preceded the law. In the words of Justice Y. Danziger Other Municipality Applications 7996/11 Safecom in the Tax Appeal v. Raviv [Nevo] (November 18, 2023) at paragraph 16: "A basic principle in copyright law is that the idea that underlies a work will not be protected by the right and that protection will be given only by the way it is expressed."