IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Copyright Doctrines, Abstraction and Court Error


  • Khong Dennis W.K.

    () (University of Manchester)


Copyright 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Khong Dennis W.K., 2007. "Copyright Doctrines, Abstraction and Court Error," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(3), pages 715-743, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:3:y:2007:i:3:n:5

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Hart, Oliver & Moore, John, 1990. "Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1119-1158, December.
    2. Patrick W. Schmitz, 2005. "Should Contractual Clauses that Forbid Renegotiation Always be Enforced?," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 315-329, October.
    3. Williamson, Oliver E, 1979. "Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractural Relations," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 233-261, October.
    4. Putterman, Louis & Skillman, Gilbert L., 1992. "The role of exit costs in the theory of cooperative teams," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 596-618, December.
    5. Burch, Timothy R., 2001. "Locking out rival bidders: The use of lockup options in corporate mergers," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 103-141, April.
    6. Patrick W. Schmitz, 2005. "Should Contractual Clauses that Forbid Renegotiation Always be Enforced?," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 315-329, October.
    7. Brigitte C. Madrian, 1994. "Employment-Based Health Insurance and Job Mobility: Is there Evidence of Job-Lock?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 109(1), pages 27-54.
    8. Schwartz, Alan & Watson, Joel, 2000. "Economic and Legal Aspects of Costly Recontracting," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt4jr3g3h7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    9. Sergio G. Lazzarini, 2004. "Order with Some Law: Complementarity versus Substitution of Formal and Informal Arrangements," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 261-298, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:3:y:2007:i:3:n:5. See general 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). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.