Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Intellectual Property Law

Copyright infringement

Scholarship Chronologically

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Copyright Owners' Putative Interests In Privacy, Reputation, And Control: A Reply To Goold - Draft - 05-15-2017, Wendy J. Gordon May 2017

Copyright Owners' Putative Interests In Privacy, Reputation, And Control: A Reply To Goold - Draft - 05-15-2017, Wendy J. Gordon

Scholarship Chronologically

Patrick Goold’s interesting new article, Unbundling the “Tort” of Copyright Infringement (“Unbundling”) centers on a key lack of clarity that Professor Goold perceives in the cause of action for copyright infringement. The lack of clarity, he argues, afflicts threshold definitions of what constitutes actionable copying.


Draft Of The Concept Of "Harm" In Copyright - 2013, Wendy J. Gordon Jun 2013

Draft Of The Concept Of "Harm" In Copyright - 2013, Wendy J. Gordon

Scholarship Chronologically

This essay examines the tort of copyright infringement. It argues that the ideas of "harm" and "fault" already play a role in the tort’s functioning, and that an ideally reformulated version of the tort should perhaps give a more significant role to “harm.” The essay therefore examines what “harm” can or should mean, reviewing four candidates for cognizable harm in copyright law (rivalry-based losses, foregone fees, loss of exclusivity, and subjective distress) and canvassing three philosophical conceptions of “harm” (counterfactual, historical-worsening, and noncomparative). The essay identifies the appropriateness vel non of employing, in the copyright context, each harm-candidate and each …


Note On Individualized V Particularized Entitlement Inquiries - 1984, Wendy J. Gordon Jan 1984

Note On Individualized V Particularized Entitlement Inquiries - 1984, Wendy J. Gordon

Scholarship Chronologically

My analysis now looks something like this: Some entitlements should be "prima facie" protectible from invasion. That means that there are some entitlements which the owner should be able to protect even if he or she is unable to prove (a) that protection is in the net social interest or (b) that the invader's action is deserving of punishment. I would call these entitlements "property".