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

Law Commons

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

Series

Duke Law

Intellectual Property Law

Artistic

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

There's No Such Thing As Independent Creation, And It's A Good Thing, Too, Christopher Buccafusco Jan 2023

There's No Such Thing As Independent Creation, And It's A Good Thing, Too, Christopher Buccafusco

Faculty Scholarship

Independent creation is the foundation of U.S. copyright law. A work is only original and, thus, copyrightable to the extent that it is independently created by its author and not copied from another source. And a work can be deemed infringing only if it is not independently created. Moreover, independent creation provides the grounding for all major theoretical justifications for copyright law. Unfortunately, the doctrine cannot bear the substantial weight that has been foisted upon it. This Article argues that copyright law’s independent creation doctrine rests on a set of discarded psychological assumptions about memory, copying, and creativity. When those …


How Conceptual Art Challenges Copyright's Notions Of Authorial Control And Creativity, Christopher Buccafusco Jan 2020

How Conceptual Art Challenges Copyright's Notions Of Authorial Control And Creativity, Christopher Buccafusco

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Authorship And The Boundaries Of Copyright: Ideas, Expressions, And Functions In Yoga, Choreography, And Other Works, Christopher Buccafusco Jan 2016

Authorship And The Boundaries Of Copyright: Ideas, Expressions, And Functions In Yoga, Choreography, And Other Works, Christopher Buccafusco

Faculty Scholarship

This essay uses the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Bikram’s Yoga College of India v. Evolation Yoga as an opportunity to analyze the nature of copyrightable authorship and the mechanisms that the law uses to screen out uncopyrightable content from otherwise copyrightable works. I argue that although the court likely reached the right result in Bikram, it did so in a confused and poorly supported manner. The court misunderstood the nature of the idea/expression distinction, the role of section 102(b), and the appropriate mechanism for screening out functional features of works. These aspects of the court’s opinion are widespread in copyright …