A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SUBCONSCIOUS COPYING DOCTRINE

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 327 - 338, 31.12.2023

Esra Ünal Yeşilyurt

https://doi.org/10.55027/tfm.1321757

Öz

The copyright law's notion of subconscious copying has generated a great deal of discussion and controversy. The concept of subconscious copying is evaluated critically in this article, which also explores the key arguments for and against it. The philosophy is essentially based on the notion that people may unintentionally produce works that are strikingly similar to works that already exist due to subconscious influences. Inconsistencies in court rulings result from variations in the doctrine's application and interpretation across various legal systems.
The article highlights the standards that courts apply to assess whether subconscious copying has taken place and explores significant court judgments that have developed the notion of subconscious copying. While some courts place a strong emphasis on the availability of the original work and the degree of likeness, other courts value time distance as a crucial consideration. The article also contrasts the techniques taken by various legal systems, including the strict liability system in the US and the necessity of a causal connection in the UK and Canada.
In conclusion, the notion of subconscious copying is still a complicated and divisive topic in copyright law. Although it makes an effort to overcome the difficulties caused by unintentional impacts on creativity, its application and justification face considerable difficulties. The article advocates for a fair strategy that takes into account the needs of both the public and intellectual property rights' integrity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

subconscious copying, copyright law, case law, creativity, implicit memory

Kaynakça

• Alden, Carissa L. (2007), ‘A Proposal to Replace the Subconscious Copying Doctrine Note’, Cardozo Law Review, N: 4, V:29, p. 1729-1764.
• Balganesh,Shyamkrishna (2012), ‘The Normavitiy Of Copying in Copyright Law’, Duke Law Journal, N:2, V:72, p. 203-284.
• Beckerman-Rodau, Andrew (2010), ‘The Problem with Intellectual Property Rights: Subject Matter Expansion’, Yale Journal of Law and Technology, N:1, V:13, p. 35-88.
• Boon, Marcus (2010), In Praise of Copying Cambridge, Harvard University Press, p.285.
• Feldman, Robin (2010), ‘The Role of the Subconscious in Intellectual Property Law’, Hastings Science and Technology Law Journal, N:1, V:2, p. 1-24.
• Goldstein, Paul & Hugenholtz, P.Bernt (2019), International Copyright Principles, Law, and Practice, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press.
• Gordon, Wendy J. (1990), ‘Review: Toward a Jurisprudence of Benefits: The Norms of Copyright and the Problem of Private Censorship by by Paul Goldstein’, The University of Chicago Law Review, N:3, V:57,p.1009-1049.
• Hollingsworth, Joel S. (2000), ‘Stop Me If I’ve Heard This Already: The Temporal Remoteness Aspect of the Subconscious Copying Doctrine’, Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, N:2, V:23,p. 457-475.
• Jaeger, Christopher Brett(2008), ‘Does That Sound Familiar: Creators’ Liability for Unconscious Copyright Infringement Note’, Vanderbilt Law Review, N:6, V:61,p. 1903-1934.
• Landes, William M. & Posner, Richard A. (1989), ‘An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law’, The Journal of Legal Studies, N:2, V:30, p. 265-309.
• Leaffer, Marshall A. (2019), Understanding Copyright Law, Seventh Edition, Carolina Academic Press. Miller, Michael Craig (2010), ‘Unconscious or Subconscious?’ (Harvard Health, <https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/unconscious-or-subconscious-20100801255>last accessed 8 December 2021.
• Mobley, Danielle (2017), ‘Deja Vu or Copyright Infringement: Why Melania Trump Infringed on Michelle Obama’s Copyrighted Speech through Subconscious Copying’, John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, N:3, V:17,p. 360-379.
• Patterson, L. Ray (2000), ‘Understanding the Copyright Clause’, Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., V:47, p. 365-396.
• Sanderson, Jay &Wiseman, Leanne[2015], ‘Are Musicians Full Of It? The Metaphorical and Figurative Power Of Subconscious Copying in Copyright Infringement Cases’, Griffith Journal of Law & Human Dignity, Special Art Issue, p.53-66.
• Sayre, Francis Bowes (1932), ‘Mens Rea’, Harvard Law Review, N:6, V:45, p. 974-1026.
• Skirpan, Rebecca (2022), ‘An Argument That Independent Creation Is as Likely as Subconscious Copying in Music Infringement Cases’, Law School Student Scholarship, <https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=student_scholarship>last accessed 4 November 2022.
• Suvapan, Janyarak &Sirichit, Methaya (2019), ‘The Subconscious Copying Doctrine Across the Legal System of the United States of America, United Kingdom and France’, Naresuan University Law Journal, N:2, V:12, p. 65-85.
• Vaver, David (2001) ‘Creating a Fair Intellectual Property System for the 21st Century F W Guest Memorial Lecture’, Otago Law Review, N:1, V:10, p. 1-16.
• COURT CASES
• ABKCO Music v Harrisongs Music, United States Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit [1983] 722 F.2d 988
• Bright Tunes Music Corp v Harrisongs Music, Ltd, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York [1976] 420 F. Supp. 177
• Drynan v Rostad,Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) [1994] 59 C.P.R. (3d) 8
• Edwards & Deutsch Lithographing Co v Boorman, United States Court of Appeals 7th Circuit [1926], 15 F.2d 35
• EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd, Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia [2011] 47
• Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron, England and Wales Court of Appeal [1963]Civ J0225-1
• Fred Fisher, Inc v Dillingham, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York [1924], 298 F. 145
• Harold Lloyd Corporation v Witwer,The Court of Criminal Appeal [1933] 9th Circuit 65 F.2d 1
• Navara v Witmark Sons, New York Supreme Court [1959] 17 Misc. 2d 174
• Sheldon v Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corporation,The Court of Criminal Appeal 2nd Circuit [1939] 106 F.2d 45.
• Three Boys Music v Michael BoltonUnited States Court of Appeals 9th Circuit[2000] 212 F.3d 477.
• Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp v DieckhausThe Court of Criminal Appeal8th Circuit[1946] 153 F.2d 893.
• United Artists Corp v Ford Motor CoUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York[1980] 483 F. Supp. 89.
• Whitney v Ross Jungnickel, IncUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York [1960] 179 F. Supp. 751.
• Williams v Gaye,United States Court of Appeals 9th Circuit[2018]15-56880.