Author: Chen Jiajin time: 20 12-08- 16 Copyright law only protects the expression of works, but not the ideas, concepts, creativity and creativity of works. For example, a famous historian, through a lot of research, came to a conclusion: Yang Guifei traveled to Japan and eventually died in Japan, so he wrote this conclusion as an academic paper and cited detailed historical materials to prove it. The article also includes a road map of Yang Guifei's eastward trip to Japan and Yang's daily life in Japan. The paper has more than 5000 words. A certain B was inspired, borrowed A's viewpoint and expanded it, and wrote a novel of 200,000 words. Because A's thought is not protected, B can certainly borrow it, so B doesn't infringe. Give another similar example. 1989, the academic paper "Who is hiding in a Dream of Red Mansions" written by Huo Guoling, a red scientist, and his sister. The article puts forward a new viewpoint: Cao Xueqin was robbed by Yongzheng, and her lover Joo Sang wook was elected to the palace and finally became the queen. In Yongzheng 13, Cao Yuzhu and his wife tried to poison Yongzheng with cinnabar. After the event, the paper has more than 20 thousand words. Fu Zhenhua, another dream lover, was inspired by it and wrote a 250,000-word Dream of Red Mansions around the viewpoint of the above paper. Because the copyright law does not protect ideas, Fu Zhenhua borrowed the former's viewpoint and did not infringe the former's copyright. The reason why the copyright law does not protect ideas is that today's society is a democratic society, and ideas are free and cannot be monopolized by anyone; Furthermore, in order to encourage creation and produce more and better works, the copyright law gives the author a certain monopoly. If people's thoughts are imprisoned, their creation will be restricted, which obviously violates the legislative purpose of copyright law. Of course, sometimes, the conception of a work is not easy to distinguish from the expression of a work, because the conception is always expressed in a certain form. For example, A writes the novel A, and B rewrites the novel A into B by replacing synonyms. Strictly speaking, the expression of B is definitely different from that of A, but it cannot be concluded that B is a new work and B is not infringing. Generally speaking, any novel has a theme. In order to express this theme, the author will construct a series of specific details such as characters, major events, the sequence of characters' appearance, characters' personality, scenes, plots, story structure and so on. When these details are expressed in words, the specific expression of the novel is formed. If you plagiarize specific written expressions, it is definitely an infringement on the expression form of novels, which is infringement; If you copy the main characters, major events, characters' personalities, scenes, plots, structures and other specific details of the novel, you will form a novel equivalent to the original novel, all the details are the same, but the specific combination of words is different, which also violates the basic expression of the previous work. For example, February River wrote a novel Yongzheng Dynasty, and a cartoonist created a cartoon version of Yongzheng Dynasty based on the above works. Although the specific words of the two works are different, the former is expressed in words and the latter in pictures, but the specific details of the characters, plots, sequences, scenes and story structures before and after the works are the same, and the latter infringes on the former's expression. As mentioned above, copying the full text of other people's works is infringement, replacing synonyms throughout is infringement, and misappropriating all specific details is infringement, but just borrowing ideas and concepts from other people's articles is not infringement. So how to grasp infringement and non-infringement The author of this book thinks that the two works should be compared comprehensively according to the basic details of the works and the ordinary authors in their respective fields. If ordinary readers and ordinary authors in their respective fields think that they are exactly the same or basically the same, they can think that the latter infringes on the expression of the former, and the latter is an infringement.