What is the core rule from Nichols v. Universal Pictures?

Ideas and stock characters are not protected by copyright. Only the author’s specific expression is protected.

Why did the court rule for Universal Pictures?

The films shared general ideas but not the protected expression. The plots and details were sufficiently different.

What is the idea–expression dichotomy in simple words?

You cannot monopolize an idea. You can only protect the unique words, scenes or details you used to express it.

Are stock characters ever protected?

Basic stock types are not protected. A highly distinctive, well-drawn character may get protection, but basic archetypes will not.

How do courts test similarity?

They look beyond small changes and ask whether the protected expression was taken. Broad themes alone are not enough.

Law Easy

02 November, 2025

251

Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corpn. (1930) — Idea–Expression Dichotomy & Stock Characters | The Law Easy

Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corpn. (1930)

A simple, classroom-style guide to the landmark copyright case on the idea–expression divide and stock characters.

```

2d Cir. 1930 Learned Hand 45 F.2d 119 Copyright ~5 min read

idea–expression dichotomy stock characters copyright infringement

```

CASE_TITLE: Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corpn.
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: idea–expression dichotomy, stock characters, copyright infringement
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Abie’s Irish Rose, The Cohens and Kellys, 2d Cir., Learned Hand

PUBLISH_DATE: 01 Nov 2025 Slug: nichols-v-universal-pictures-corpn

```

Quick Summary

This case explains a key rule in copyright law: ideas and stock characters are free for everyone, but an author’s specific way of telling the story is protected. Anne Nichols wrote a hit play about a Jewish–Irish romance. Universal released a film with a similar mixed-faith family setup. The court, led by Judge Learned Hand, said the film used only general ideas and common character types—not the protected expression of the play. So, there was no infringement.

Issues

Does using the general outline or “abstract of the whole” of a story amount to copyright infringement?
Are stock characters (like strict fathers from rival communities) protected by copyright?

Rules

Idea–Expression Dichotomy: Ideas, themes, and concepts are not protected. Protection covers the author’s expression—the specific words, scenes, and details.
Stock Characters: Basic character types that appear often in stories are not protected.
Abstraction Test: When you move from concrete details to higher levels of abstraction, protection thins and then disappears at the idea level.

Citation: Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corpn., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).

Facts (Timeline)

1922 — Plaintiff’s Play: Anne Nichols writes Abie’s Irish Rose, a comedy about a young Jewish man and an Irish Catholic woman who marry against their fathers’ wishes. Reconciliation follows.

1926 — Defendant’s Film: Universal releases The Cohens and the Kellys, about an Irish man marrying a Jewish woman from rival families. It also ends in reconciliation.

No Literal Copying: Names, dialogue, and scenes are different. Only broad similarities appear—mixed-faith families, angry fathers, and a final patch-up.

Trial Result: The district court finds for Universal. Nichols appeals to the Second Circuit.

Timeline visual for Nichols v. Universal Pictures

Arguments

Appellant (Nichols)

Universal took the core plot idea and the character setup from her play.
Even if words changed, the “abstract of the whole” was copied.
Small differences should not let a copier escape.

Respondent (Universal)

Only general ideas overlap—mixed-faith romance and strict fathers.
No expression was copied—different names, scenes, and dialogue.
Stock characters belong to everyone.

Judgment

The Second Circuit, speaking through Judge Learned Hand, affirmed judgment for Universal. The court held that the film did not copy protectable expression. The similarities were only at the level of ideas and stock characters, which copyright does not protect.

Ratio

Protection fades as we move from detailed expression to broader abstractions. At some point, we reach the idea itself, which is free. Here, only the idea of a mixed-faith family conflict and general character types were similar, not the protected expression.

Why It Matters

Sets a practical way to separate idea from expression.
Confirms that stock characters are open to all authors.
Guides courts on how to assess substantial similarity without granting monopolies over themes.

Key Takeaways

Ideas/themes ≠ protected; expression = protected.
Archetypes/stock figures are not protectable.
Courts look at the total concept and feel but focus on expression.

Small edits cannot hide copying of expression.
Different details and scenes help show independence.
Outcome: Defendant wins.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “IDEA is FREE, EXPRESSION is FEE.”

Spot the Idea: Broad theme or setup? Free.
Check Expression: Specific scenes, dialogue, details? Protected.
Compare Substance: Were the details taken, not just the theme?

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Does taking the general outline and stock characters infringe copyright?	Idea–expression dichotomy; stock characters not protected; abstraction approach.	Film shares only themes of mixed-faith conflict and reconciliation; names, scenes, and dialogue differ.	No infringement; similarities are unprotectable ideas/stock types. Universal prevails.

Glossary

Idea–Expression Dichotomy: Rule that protects the author’s expression but leaves the underlying idea free.
Stock Character: A common character type (e.g., strict parent) that appears in many stories.
Substantial Similarity: A legal test asking whether protectable expression was copied in a meaningful way.

FAQs

She argued that Universal copied the abstract of her play—mixed-faith lovers, angry fathers, and a final reconciliation.

By moving up and down a scale of abstraction. High-level ideas are free; concrete details are protected.

Yes. Different names, scenes, and dialogues showed that the film did not copy the protected expression.

Universal wins. The similarities were only unprotectable ideas and archetypes.

```

Comment

Nothing for now