Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W59475977> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 72 of
72
with 100 items per page.
- W59475977 abstract "This article asks: What should be the scope of copyright protection? To illustrate this question, Part I raises a hypothetical suit based on art history: Hiroshige sues Van Gogh for copying his wood-block prints in studies in oil. Exhibits present one such print and one such study in colored reproductions. Part II then explains how determining the scope of copyright in such cases leads into a basic dilemma. On the one hand, if this scope is too narrow, copyright law fails to prevent free-riding that undercuts incentives for creating and disseminating works to enhance culture. On the other, if this scope is too broad, copyright law risks stifling the feed-back of works indispensable for creating new culture. In our hypothetical, for example, an injunction against Van Gogh or his heir would hold back seminal works in modern art. No attempt is made here to evade this dilemma by invoking copyright exceptions, such as fair use, that vary from law to law. Rather, Part III compares methods and doctrines that elaborate and limit infringement analysis in copyright law generally. Many laws apply the idea-expression distinction, merger and related doctrines, or the sliding-scale analysis of infringement. Such doctrines are brought together in new analysis delineating a full spectrum of processes for appropriating works. These include rote copying, knowledgeable reworking, and innovative recasting, the latter seen in our hypothetical case. Part IV argues that remedies should be fashioned according to where a case falls along just such a spectrum. Following the proposed analysis, rote copying would trigger a full panoply of remedies, starting with injunctive relief. But knowledgeable reworking would call for only discretionary injunctions and apportioned monetary awards. Innovative recasting would preclude most injunctive orders but not apportioned awards. For example, Van Gogh would not be enjoined, but might owe Hiroshige some share of profits. These guidelines are further illustrated in some detail in diverse contemporary cases. The conclusion stresses that the analysis unpacked here is experimental. Its lesson: remedies should be adjusted to the extent of infringement." @default.
- W59475977 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W59475977 creator A5022385040 @default.
- W59475977 date "1999-01-01" @default.
- W59475977 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
- W59475977 title "Hiroshige v. Van Gogh: Resolving the Dilemma of Copyright Scope in Remedying Infringement" @default.
- W59475977 doi "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.186931" @default.
- W59475977 hasPublicationYear "1999" @default.
- W59475977 type Work @default.
- W59475977 sameAs 59475977 @default.
- W59475977 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W59475977 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W59475977 hasAuthorship W59475977A5022385040 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C2776254780 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C2778012447 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C2778496695 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C2779151265 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C2779710374 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C2779776346 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C2987650672 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C34974158 @default.
- W59475977 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C111472728 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C138885662 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C144024400 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C17744445 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C190253527 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C199360897 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C199539241 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C2776254780 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C2778012447 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C2778496695 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C2779151265 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C2779710374 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C2779776346 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C2987650672 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C34974158 @default.
- W59475977 hasConceptScore W59475977C41008148 @default.
- W59475977 hasLocation W594759771 @default.
- W59475977 hasOpenAccess W59475977 @default.
- W59475977 hasPrimaryLocation W594759771 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W1152041180 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W123193857 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W1486904317 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W1487742201 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W1489418896 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W1561534988 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W1850390756 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W203138443 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W2126291542 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W2158383889 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W216102579 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W2257852846 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W234532540 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W2525753926 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W258347739 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W3121316234 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W3121402562 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W3121733811 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W3122811772 @default.
- W59475977 hasRelatedWork W2151033010 @default.
- W59475977 isParatext "false" @default.
- W59475977 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W59475977 magId "59475977" @default.
- W59475977 workType "article" @default.