This was also discussed by the Honorable Judge, currently the President, Y. Amit, Other Municipality Applications 10242/08 Motsafi v. Kabbeli [Nevo] (October 10, 2012) (hereinafter: the Motsafi case) in relation to the Copyright Ordinance:
"At the same time, the legislature teaches us that the scope of the protection granted to a work is not absolute, and that there are a series of exceptions for which there will be no copyright, namely: 'idea', 'process and method of execution', 'mathematical concept', 'fact or fact, when they are alone' and 'news of the day' (section 7b of the Ordinance). However, although the protection does not extend to the idea itself, the way it is implemented or its tangible expression can grant the creator a copyright [...]" (paragraph 25).
Other Municipal Requests 2173/94 Tele Event Ltd. v. Golden Channels & Co., IsrSC 58(5) 529, 544 [2001], the Honorable Justice Matza noted that:
"A mere idea - even if it is innovative and unusual - is not a 'creation,' and the Copyright Law does not protect it."
It should be noted that in other municipal applications 559/69 Almagor v. Godik, IsrSC 24 825, 829 [1970] (hereinafter: the "Almagor" case), the Honorable Justice Y. Cohen clarified that there is a limitation to this rule according to which "the combination and connection of several ideas" may constitute a work provided that it finds some expression in tangible material (based on Dr. A. H. Zelikson's book, "Foundations of Copyright Law, Trademarks, Patents and Designs" (The Duplication Factory, 1963) 22, and see also Civil Appeal 23/81 Hershko v. Orbuch, IsrSC 42(3) 749, 756 [1988], hereinafter: the "Hershko" case). On the other hand, in cases where an idea can be expressed in only one way, so that there is a "union" between the idea and the way it is expressed, there will be no copyright protection for the way of expression ("the doctrine of unification", see, for example, Civil Appeals Authority 2687/92 Geva v. The Walt Disney Company, IsrSC 48(1) 251, 262 [1993], hereinafter: the Geva case).
- Many times, the question of when an idea expressed in a work is crystallized into a way of expression that is protected is not simple to answer. Ultimately, most expressions are based on an idea, and therefore the distinction between the two depends on the degree of abstraction we attribute to the term "idea" within the scope of a particular expression. The Honorable Justice Y. Maltz noted this in the Geva case (at p. 262):
"In fact, the distinction between an idea and an expression depends, and ultimately the decision whether there is unity between the idea and the expression in a specific context, depends on the level of abstraction used in defining the concept of "idea." The more abstract we define an "idea", the more abstract elements will also be included in the definition of "expression", and the greater the variety of possibilities for expression. And vice versa: the more limited and specific an idea is, the smaller the variety of ways of expressing it."