37 / 42
Η “IDEA/EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY” στην Ελλάδα 173
είναι ελεύθερες σαν τον άνεμο», στην μεν πρώτη περίπτωση, τα δικαστή-
ρια καλούνται να αξιολογήσουν την νομική απαξία της «ουσιώδους ομοιό-
τητος» (“substantial similarity”) των «ιδεών» που εκφράζονται μέσω των
επιδίκων κινηματογραφικών έργων, στην δε δεύτερη περίπτωση, την νο-
Viacom Int’l, Inc., 115 F. Supp.2d 535
(D.Md. 2000), Metrano v. Fox Broadcasting
Co., Inc., No. CV-00-02279 CAS JWJX, 2000 WL 979664 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2000),
Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004), Wrench LLC v. Taco
Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2001), Belt v. Hamilton Nat’l Bank, 108 F. Supp.
689, 691 (D.D.C. 1952), aff’d, 210 F.2d 706 (D.C. Cir. 1953), Weitzenkorn v. Lesser,
40 Cal. 2d 778 (1953), Kurlan v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 40 Cal.2d 799,
256 P.2d 962 (1953), Thompson v. California Brewing, 150 Cal. App. 2d 469, P.2d
436 (1957), Noble v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., 270 F.2d 938 (D.C. Cir. 1959),
Ralph Andrews Prods. V. Paramount Pictures, 222 Cal. App. 3d 676, 271 Cal. Rptr.
797, review denied, No. B040944, 1990 Cal. LEXIS 4664 (Oct. 10, 1990), Davies
v. Krasna, 14 Cal. 3d 502, P.2d 1161, 121 Cal. Rptr. 705 (1975), Vantage Point,
Inc. v. Parker Bros., 529 F. Supp. 1204 (E.D.N.Y. 1981), Minniear v. Tors, 266 Cal.
App. 2d 495, 72 Cal. Rptr. 130 (1966), Whitfield v. Lear, 751 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1984),
Stone v. Goodson, 8 N.Y.2d 8, 167 N.E.2d 328, 200 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1960), Colving
v. KSFO, 224 Cal. App. 2d 357, 36 Cal. Rptr. 701 (1964), Regional Reps v. WOLI
Broadcasting, 166 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 299 (N.D. Ill. 1970), Buchwald v. Paramount
Pictures, 13 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1497, No. C. 706083, 1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 634 (Cal.
App. Dep’t Super. Ct. Jan. 31, 1990), Mann v. Columbia Pictures, 128 Cal. App.
3d 628, 180 Cal. Rptr. 522 (1982), Chandler v. Roach, 156 Cal. App. 2d 435, P.2d
776 (1957), Donahue v. Ziv Television Programs, 245 Cal. App. 2d 593, 54 Cal.
Rptr. 130 (1966), Blaustein v. Burton, 9 Cal. App. 3d 161, 88 Cal. Rptr. 319 (1970),
Faris v. Endberg, 97 Cal. App. 3d 309, 158 Cal. Rptr. 704 (1979), Klekas v. EMI
Films, 150 Cal. App. 3d 1102, 198 Cal. Rptr. 296 (1984), Grombach Productions,
Inc. v. Waring, 293 N.Y. 609, 59 N.E.2d 425 (1944), Heckenkamp v. Ziv Television
Programs, 157 Cal. App. 2d 293, P.2d 137 (1958), Tele-Count Eng’rs v. Pacific Tel.
& Tel., 168 Cal. App. 3d 455, 214 Cal. Rptr. 276 (1985), Fink v. Goodson – Todman
Enters., 9 Cal. App. 3d 996, 88 Cal. Rptr. 679 (1970), Apfel v. Prudential-Bach
Sec., 81 N.Y.2d 470, 616 N.E.2d 1095, 600 N.Y.S.2d 433 (1993), Murray v. National
Broadcasting Co., 844 F.2d 988 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 955 (1988),
John W. Shaw Advertising v. Ford Motor, 112 F. Supp. 121 (N.D. III. 1953), Teich
v. General Mills, Inc., 170 Cal. App. 2d 791, 339 P.2d 627 (1959), Sutton v. Walt
Disney Prods., 118 Cal. App. 2d 598, 258 P.2d 519 (1953), Ed Graham Prods. V.
National Broadcasting Co., 347 N.Y.S.2d 766 (Sup. Ct. 1973), Henried v. Four
Star Television, 266 Cal. App. 2d 435, 72 Cal. Rptr. 223 (1968), Ware v. Columbia
Broadcasting System, 253 Cal. App. 2d 489, 61 Cal. Rptr. 590 (1967), Davis v.
General Foods Corp., 21F. Supp. 445 (S.D.N.Y. 1937), Hisel v. Chrysler Corp., 94
F. Supp. 996 (W.D. Mo. 1951), Van Rensselaer v. General Motors, 324 F.2d 354
(6th Cir. 1963), Kearns v. Ford Motor, 203 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 884 (E.D. Mich. 1978),
Wandberg v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, 194 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 884 (N.D. III. 1977),
Yadkoe v. Fields, 66 Cal. App. 2d 150 P.2d 906 (1944), Burten v. Milton Bradley
Co., 763 F.2d 461 (1st Cir. 1985), Houser v. Snap-On Tools, 202 F. Supp. 181 (D.
Md. 1962), Moore v. Ford Motor, 43 F.2d 685 (2d Cir. 1930), Smith v. Recrion Corp.,
541 P.2d 663 (Nev. 1975).