{"id":6293,"date":"2009-10-21T14:13:56","date_gmt":"2009-10-21T19:13:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.iposgoode.ca\/?p=6293"},"modified":"2009-10-21T14:13:56","modified_gmt":"2009-10-21T19:13:56","slug":"should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2009\/10\/21\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\/","title":{"rendered":"Should Copyright Law Rethink Authorship?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Daniel\u00a0Kennedy\u00a0is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall\u00a0and is taking the Intellectual Property Theory course.<\/em><\/p>\n

Like many words, \u201cauthorship\u201d takes on distinct meaning in the realm of copyright law.\u00a0 However, it may be difficult to divorce historical values associated with the term even when it is used in the legal realm.\u00a0 In his article, \u201cCopyright and Information Theory: Toward an Alternative Model of \u2018Authorship\u2019<\/a>\u201d, Alan L. Durham explores the paradigm of romantic authorship which he views as a persistent influence on modern American copyright doctrine.\u00a0 The romantic model, in Durham\u2019s view, tends to misrepresent the author as a wielder of self-generated, personal, and even \u201cmagical\u201d creative power.\u00a0 Thus, using the conceptual framework of information theory, Durham examines two alternative and more inclusive redefinitions of authorship.\u00a0<\/p>\n

His first model views authorship as the process of adding \u201cnoise\u201d to a signal.\u00a0 Authors are themselves seen as imperfect conduits, adding \u201cconditional entropy\u201d to their work with shaky hands, flawed vision, or other inherent imperfections.\u00a0 However, in Durham\u2019s view, this approach minimizes the human presence of the author and operates on an incomplete understanding of the role of the artist.\u00a0 Thus, he prefers a second model of authorship which asks whether the human transmitter in a particular instance freely selected the elements of his or her work from a range of alternatives.\u00a0 This second theory of authorship focuses on the inevitability of the work in question. \u00a0Effectively, where there is more opportunity for choice, the work in question is less inevitable and authorship is more likely to be recognized.<\/p>\n

While Durham\u2019s application of information theory leads him to an interesting conceptualization of authorship, his approach is also a response to the unique copyright context of the United States.\u00a0 His concern about the prevalence of the romantic notion of authorship in copyright doctrine is based in no small part on the American definition of \u201coriginality\u201d which includes the requirement that a copyrightable work contain a \u201cmodicum of creativity\u201d.\u00a0 As a result, Durham perceives the American definition of authorship as under-inclusive.\u00a0 In his view, the \u201cfree selection\u201d theory of authorship described above would not exclude protection of any works that have been found to attract copyright to date while simultaneously expanding the scope of copyright to include new and perhaps uncreative works.<\/p>\n

In contrast, the Canadian definition of \u201coriginality\u201d as stated by McLachlin J. in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada<\/em><\/a> is explicitly defined as falling somewhere between a creativity standard (like the American model) and the Lockean \u201csweat of the brow\u201d standard.\u00a0 Rather than insisting on a modicum of creativity, Canadian law simply requires that a copyrighted work be more than a mere copy.\u00a0 To determine whether a work meets this standard, courts will ask whether the expression in question required skill and judgement to produce.\u00a0 This approach appears to be more inclusive that the American standard and may resolve many of Durham\u2019s concerns in the Canadian context by sufficiently removing romantic creative elements from the legal definition of authorship.<\/p>\n

While the CCH <\/em>decision can be seen as broadening the definition of originality when compared to the American model, it is interesting to consider if and how Durham\u2019s \u201cfree choice\u201d standard of authorship differs from the current Canadian paradigm.\u00a0 Like Durham\u2019s model, McLachlin J.\u2019s definition of \u201cjudgement\u201d in CCH<\/em>, <\/em>considers whether the production of the work in question involved \u201cevaluation by comparing different possible options\u201d.\u00a0 On the other hand, the Durham article theorizes that works of \u201carbitrary, indeterminate, or mechanical means\u201d might satisfy his proposed \u201cfree choice\u201d originality requirement and attract copyright protection.\u00a0 It is certainly conceivable that works of this kind would fail to meet the current Canadian \u201cskill and judgement\u201d standard.<\/p>\n

If Durham\u2019s \u201cfree choice\u201d model of authorship would in effect increase the scope of copyright protection beyond the current Canadian legal definition, it is relevant to ask whether such an expansion would serve the policy aims of the copyright system.\u00a0 Like many scholars, Durham has noted, \u201cif copyright law is to benefit the public as intended, it must balance the opposing tugs of author incentive and consumer access\u201d.\u00a0 We should therefore ask: are arbitrary, indeterminate, and mechanical works currently being under-produced because they are not adequately protected?\u00a0 Is there a social benefit in attempting to increase production of this kind of work through fortified copyright protection?\u00a0 These are questions that Durham does not address in substantive detail, yet they are relevant to a discussion of authorship and originality in the context of copyright law.<\/p>\n

It is also possible that a copyright monopoly is not the appropriate means of ensuring protection for certain kinds of expression that would be defined as copyrightable by the Durham model.\u00a0 Mechanically produced databases, for example, may arguably be better protected by unfair competition law or even by a sui generis<\/em> right to data.\u00a0 Although Durham acknowledges that his proposed theory of authorship would have to operate in conjunction with the \u201ctraditional dichotomies of copyright law\u201d, he does not explore how far his new copyrightable territory would extend or the implications of the expansion.<\/p>\n

While Durham\u2019s article prompts many questions, especially in the context of Canadian copyright law, it also adds valuable perspective.\u00a0 Defining authorship in relation to free choice and \u201cindeterminacy\u201d bolsters the increasingly popular view that most authors are essentially engaged in the process of selecting and recombining pre-existing elements.\u00a0 The article also prompts us to re-examine some of the biases and assumptions that affect our approach to the legal constructs at the heart of our copyright system.\u00a0 It is not entirely clear whether Durham is advocating substantive legal change in these areas or simply encouraging readers to consider them in a new light. \u00a0However, if we are to restructure the legal definition of terms like \u201coriginality\u201d, due consideration must be given to the policy objectives that underpin copyright law in addition to prevailing conceptions of authorship.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Daniel\u00a0Kennedy\u00a0is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall\u00a0and is taking the Intellectual Property Theory course. Like many words, \u201cauthorship\u201d takes on distinct meaning in the realm of copyright law.\u00a0 However, it may be difficult to divorce historical values associated with the term even when it is used in the legal realm.\u00a0 In his article, \u201cCopyright and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2140,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_blocks_custom_css":"","_kad_blocks_head_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_body_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_footer_custom_js":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[65,60,272],"tags":[819,27,387,820,95],"class_list":["post-6293","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-copyright","category-ip","category-originality","tag-authorship","tag-copyright","tag-daniel-kennedy","tag-durham","tag-originality"],"yoast_head":"\nShould Copyright Law Rethink Authorship? - IPOsgoode<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2009\/10\/21\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Should Copyright Law Rethink Authorship? - IPOsgoode\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Daniel\u00a0Kennedy\u00a0is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall\u00a0and is taking the Intellectual Property Theory course. Like many words, \u201cauthorship\u201d takes on distinct meaning in the realm of copyright law.\u00a0 However, it may be difficult to divorce historical values associated with the term even when it is used in the legal realm.\u00a0 In his article, \u201cCopyright and […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2009\/10\/21\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"IPOsgoode\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-21T19:13:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ccraig\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ccraig\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2009\\\/10\\\/21\\\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2009\\\/10\\\/21\\\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ccraig\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/09b0ef7189d5a2bd6fef2472e5ea5b94\"},\"headline\":\"Should Copyright Law Rethink Authorship?\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-21T19:13:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2009\\\/10\\\/21\\\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":990,\"keywords\":[\"authorship\",\"copyright\",\"Daniel Kennedy\",\"Durham\",\"Originality\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Copyright\",\"IP\",\"Originality\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-CA\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2009\\\/10\\\/21\\\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2009\\\/10\\\/21\\\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\\\/\",\"name\":\"Should Copyright Law Rethink Authorship? - IPOsgoode\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-21T19:13:56+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/09b0ef7189d5a2bd6fef2472e5ea5b94\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2009\\\/10\\\/21\\\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-CA\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2009\\\/10\\\/21\\\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/2009\\\/10\\\/21\\\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Should Copyright Law Rethink Authorship?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/\",\"name\":\"IPOsgoode\",\"description\":\"An Authoritive Leader in IP\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-CA\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/09b0ef7189d5a2bd6fef2472e5ea5b94\",\"name\":\"ccraig\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-CA\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4d6461ef50f637a66f0e694df440ca5896971e12de84d604936521b184fec22a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4d6461ef50f637a66f0e694df440ca5896971e12de84d604936521b184fec22a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4d6461ef50f637a66f0e694df440ca5896971e12de84d604936521b184fec22a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"ccraig\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.yorku.ca\\\/osgoode\\\/iposgoode\\\/author\\\/ccraig\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Should Copyright Law Rethink Authorship? - IPOsgoode","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2009\/10\/21\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Should Copyright Law Rethink Authorship? - IPOsgoode","og_description":"Daniel\u00a0Kennedy\u00a0is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall\u00a0and is taking the Intellectual Property Theory course. Like many words, \u201cauthorship\u201d takes on distinct meaning in the realm of copyright law.\u00a0 However, it may be difficult to divorce historical values associated with the term even when it is used in the legal realm.\u00a0 In his article, \u201cCopyright and […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2009\/10\/21\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\/","og_site_name":"IPOsgoode","article_published_time":"2009-10-21T19:13:56+00:00","author":"ccraig","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ccraig","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2009\/10\/21\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2009\/10\/21\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\/"},"author":{"name":"ccraig","@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/#\/schema\/person\/09b0ef7189d5a2bd6fef2472e5ea5b94"},"headline":"Should Copyright Law Rethink Authorship?","datePublished":"2009-10-21T19:13:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2009\/10\/21\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\/"},"wordCount":990,"keywords":["authorship","copyright","Daniel Kennedy","Durham","Originality"],"articleSection":["Copyright","IP","Originality"],"inLanguage":"en-CA"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2009\/10\/21\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\/","url":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2009\/10\/21\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\/","name":"Should Copyright Law Rethink Authorship? - IPOsgoode","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-21T19:13:56+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/#\/schema\/person\/09b0ef7189d5a2bd6fef2472e5ea5b94"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2009\/10\/21\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-CA","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2009\/10\/21\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/2009\/10\/21\/should-copyright-law-rethink-authorship\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Should Copyright Law Rethink Authorship?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/","name":"IPOsgoode","description":"An Authoritive Leader in IP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-CA"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/#\/schema\/person\/09b0ef7189d5a2bd6fef2472e5ea5b94","name":"ccraig","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-CA","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4d6461ef50f637a66f0e694df440ca5896971e12de84d604936521b184fec22a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4d6461ef50f637a66f0e694df440ca5896971e12de84d604936521b184fec22a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4d6461ef50f637a66f0e694df440ca5896971e12de84d604936521b184fec22a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"ccraig"},"url":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/author\/ccraig\/"}]}},"taxonomy_info":{"category":[{"value":65,"label":"Copyright"},{"value":60,"label":"IP"},{"value":272,"label":"Originality"}],"post_tag":[{"value":819,"label":"authorship"},{"value":27,"label":"copyright"},{"value":387,"label":"Daniel Kennedy"},{"value":820,"label":"Durham"},{"value":95,"label":"Originality"}]},"featured_image_src_large":false,"author_info":{"display_name":"ccraig","author_link":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/author\/ccraig\/"},"comment_info":"","category_info":[{"term_id":65,"name":"Copyright","slug":"copyright","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":65,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":907,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":65,"category_count":907,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Copyright","category_nicename":"copyright","category_parent":0},{"term_id":60,"name":"IP","slug":"ip","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":60,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":1229,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":60,"category_count":1229,"category_description":"","cat_name":"IP","category_nicename":"ip","category_parent":0},{"term_id":272,"name":"Originality","slug":"originality","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":272,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":56,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":272,"category_count":56,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Originality","category_nicename":"originality","category_parent":0}],"tag_info":[{"term_id":819,"name":"authorship","slug":"authorship","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":819,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":5,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":27,"name":"copyright","slug":"copyright","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":27,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":412,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":387,"name":"Daniel Kennedy","slug":"daniel-kennedy","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":387,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":2,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":820,"name":"Durham","slug":"durham","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":820,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":1,"filter":"raw"},{"term_id":95,"name":"Originality","slug":"originality","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":95,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":8,"filter":"raw"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6293","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2140"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6293"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6293\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6293"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6293"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yorku.ca\/osgoode\/iposgoode\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6293"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}