Copyright Doctrines, Abstraction and Court Error
AbstractCopyright protection can be divided into ?ve levels: subject matter, level of abstraction, exceptions, term limit, and restricted acts. Although copyright exceptions, in particular the fair use doctrine, and term limit have been subject to signi?cant economic analyses, studies on protection and the limits of protection of subject matter, and level of abstraction in copyright are still fairly scarce. Furthermore, the dominant model for optimal copyright protection is problematic for it requires a standard-based copyright doctrine to achieve what was postulated. Since copyright doctrines in respect of protection based on the level of abstraction are more rule-based in nature, an alternative explanation is in order. In a recent article titled Copyright as a Rule of Evidence, Douglas Lichtman (2003) hinted such an approach where evidence plays a role in explaining this set of doctrines. In this paper, we use an abstraction and a probabilistic model to explain copyright doctrines. Copyright doctrines such as the idea-expression dichotomy, the originality requirement, de minimis rule, substantiality requirement, merger doctrine, and the scènes á faire doctrine, have the effect of creating a protection divide. Doctrines such as the causal connection requirement, independent creation defence, and the objective similarity requirement, further create an inference divide. We show that the protection and inference divides are relevant in protecting the literal and non-literal dimensions in a copyrighted work. Furthermore, we ?nd that between the protection divide and the inference divide, there is a region of non-strict liability protection. All these three regions, and the related copyright doctrines, are explained by an evidence theory of minimising the risk of court error in deciding infringement cases.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by De Gruyter in its journal Review of Law & Economics.
Volume (Year): 3 (2007)
Issue (Month): 3 (December)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.degruyter.com
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.