Abstract
This paper analyses legal fictions—the use of certain constructs in legal reasoning—through the eyes of law’s fictions—the way in which law accounts for fictional objects in copyright law. Recent developments in philosophy that saw increased interest by analytical philosophers and logicians in the Austrian tradition of ontology, provide the theoretical framework for analysing both types of occurrence of fictional objects in legal discourse. This paves the way for a future formal and computational theory of copyright law on the one hand, a ‘computational metaphysics’ of the jurisprudential theory of legal fictions on the other.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Walt Disney Productions v Air Pirates 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1978).
- 2.
Walt Disney Productions v Air Pirates 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1978), p. 753, quoting from K. Wheelwright, “Parody, Copyrights and the First Amendment” 10 U.S.F. L. Rev. 564 1975–1976, p. 582.
- 3.
See: at first instance Joanne Kathleen Rowling, Uitgeverij de Harmonie BV, Time Warner Entertainment Company LP v Uitgeverij Byblos BV (Case KG 03/477 SR, District Court of Amsterdam) [2003] E.C.D.R 23; and on appeal Uitgeverij Byblos BV v Joanne Kathleen Rowling, Uitgeverij de Harmonie BV and Time Warner Entertainment Company LP (Cause List No. 844/03 SKG, Court of Appeal of Amsterdam) [2004] E.C.D.R 7.
- 4.
Leslie S Klinger v Conan Doyle Estates Ltd (US District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division) 23 December 2013 (available at: http://freesherlock.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/klinger-order-on-motion-for-summary-judgment-c.pdf, accessed 3 April 2014). The aspects of character added in the later stories (for examples of which, see footnote 8 below) were newer ‘increments of expression’ of those characters which, at least on the evidence before the court at the summary judgment stage, were entitled to copyright protection and, given the rules on copyright duration, remained in copyright for some years to come.
- 5.
The opportunity to address this question was missed in the Walt Disney Productions v Air Pirates case itself. In that case, the court held that copying a comic book character’s visual image constituted copying to an extent sufficient to justify a finding of infringement and this was not contested, the court proceeding directly to consider (and reject) the defendant’s plea of a parody-based ‘fair use’ defence: 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1978), p. 756. There was no argument about infringement of any rights in the wider ‘characters’ of the copied cartoon creatures. See further Nevins (1991–1992).
- 6.
Our account is heavily indebted to the excellent exposition of the discussion by Kroon and Voltiolini (2011).
- 7.
- 8.
Such attributes included character traits such as Dr Watson’s athletic background (first described in a 1924 short story) and personal storylines, such as Sherlock Holme’s retirement (first described in a 1926 short story): Leslie S Klinger v Conan Doyle Estates Ltd (US District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division) 23 December 2013 (available at: http://freesherlock.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/klinger-order-on-motion-for-summary-judgment-c.pdf, accessed 3 April 2014), p. 15.
- 9.
The US court had no difficulty with the fact that, as Conan Doyle Estates put it, its ruling would in effect ‘dismantle’ each character into two versions, a public domain version and a copyright-protected version: Leslie S Klinger v Conan Doyle Estates Ltd (US District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division) 23 December 2013 (available at: http://freesherlock.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/klinger-order-on-motion-for-summary-judgment-c.pdf, accessed 3 April 2014), pp. 13–14.
- 10.
See in particular Leslie S Klinger v Conan Doyle Estates Ltd (US District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division) 23 December 2013 (available at: http://freesherlock.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/klinger-order-on-motion-for-summary-judgment-c.pdf, accessed 3 April 2014), p. 14. The decision follows existing US case law precedent on this issue, in particular Silverman v CBS, Inc. 870 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1989).
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
Those who are sceptical about the explanatory value of such a proposition are, for example, Brock (2010).
- 14.
Although the most used, it should be noted that the ‘distinct delineation’ test is not the only test which has been used by the US courts on the issue of entitlement to copyright protection for fictional characters. Other tests have included the so-called ‘story being told’ test, which looks at the relative importance of character over plot in the work in which the relevant character appears: see, in particular, Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. v Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. 216 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1954). However, it is thought that US law is now converging on the ‘character delineation’ test: Kurtz (2012–2013), at p. 447. On the different tests and their application in US law and for commentary on how the ‘distinct delineation’ test has been applied in practice, see further: Kurtz (1990); Schienke (2005); Karjala (2006); Katyal (2006); Lai Chung (2007–2008); Foley (2008–2009); Coe (2011).
- 15.
Nichols v Universal Pictures Corporation et al 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).
- 16.
Nichols v Universal Pictures Corporation et al 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930), p. 121.
- 17.
Sunbank Trust v Houghton Mifflin Company 268 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001).
- 18.
Sunbank Trust v Houghton Mifflin Company 268 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001), at p. 1266.
References
Bentham, J. 1838–1843. The works of Jeremy Bentham. 11 vols, vol. 5. Edinburgh: William Tait (published under the Superintendence of his Executor, John Bowring).
Boella, G., and L. van der Torre .2006. An architecture of a normative system: counts-as conditionals, obligations and permissions. Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. Association for Computing Machinery.
Brock, S. 2010. The creationist fiction: The case against creationism about fictional characters. Philosophical Review 119:337–364.
Coe, S. 2011. The story of a character: Establishing the limits of independent copyright protection for literary characters. Chicago-Kent Law Review 86:1305.
Campbell, K. 1983. Fuller on legal fictions. Law and Philosophy 2 (3): 339–370.
Currie, G. 1990. The nature of fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donnellan, K. S. 1974. Speaking of nothing. Philosophical Review 83:3–32.
Esser, J. 1969. Wert und Bedeutung der Rechtsfiktionen: Kritisches zur Technik der Gesetzgebung und zur bisherigen Dogmatik des Privatrechts. Vittorio Klostermann.
Fine, K. 1982. The problem of non-existents. I. Internalism, Topoi, 1: 97–140.
Foley, K. 2008–2009. Protecting fictional characters: Defining the elusive trademark-copyright divide. Connecticut Law Review 41:921.
Fuller, L. L. 1930. Legal fictions. Illinois Law Review 25:363–399.
Goldblatt, R. 2003. Mathematical modal logic: A view of its evolution. Journal of Applied Logic 1 (5): 309–392.
Hage, J. 2012. The deontic furniture of the world: An analysis of the basic concepts that embody normativity. Maastricht European private law institute working paper 2012/7.
Hintikka, J. 1962. Knowledge and belief. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Howell, R. 1979. Fictional objects: How they are and how they aren’t. Poetics 8:129–177.
Jacquette, D. 1996. Meinongian logic: the semantics of existence and nonexistence, Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
Kaplan, D. 1973. Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice. In Approaches to Natural Language, ed. K. J. I. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcsik & P. Suppes, 490–518. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Karjala, Dennis S. 2006. Harry Potter, Tanya Grotter, and the copyright derivative work. Arizona State Law Journal 38:17–40.
Katyal, S. 2006. Performance, property and the slashing of gender in fan fiction. Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law 14 (3): 461–472.
Kripke, S. 1963. Semantical analysis of modal logic. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 9:67–96.
Kripke, S. 1979. A puzzle about belief. In Meaning and use, ed. A. Margalit, 239–283. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Kroon, F., and Voltolini, A. 2011. Fiction. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/fiction/. Accessed 15 Aug 2014.
Kurtz, L. 1990. The rocky road to character protection. Entertainment Law Review 1 (2): 62–67.
Kurtz, L. 2012–2013. Fictional characters and real people. University of Louisville Law Review 51: 435.
Lai Chung, J. 2007–2008. Drawing idea from expression: Creating a legal space for culturally appropriated literary characters. William & Mary Law Review 49:903.
Lewis, D. 1978. Truth in fiction. American Philosophical Quarterly 15:37–46. (Reprinted in Lewis, D. 1983. Philosophical papers, vol 1, 261–275. Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Meinong, A. 1904. Über gegenstandtheorie. In Untersuchungen zur gegenstandtheorie und psychologie, ed. A. Meinong. Leipzig: Barth. (Reprinted in 1971 Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Gesamtausgabe bd. II). 481–535. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt.)
Mellinkoff, D. 1964. Who is John Doe? UCLA Law Review 12:79.
Meurer, D. 1976. Die Fiktion als Gegenstand der Gesetzgebungslehre. Studien zu einer Theorie der Gesetzgebung, 281-295. Berlin: Springer.
Nevins, F. 1991–1992. Copyright + character = catastrophe. Journal of Copyright Society USA 39:303.
Parsons, T. 1980. Nonexistent objects. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Pavel, T. G. 1979 Fiction and the causal theory of names. Poetics 8 (1–2): 179–191.
Putnam, H. 1973. Meaning and reference. The Journal of Philosophy 70:699–711.
Quine W. v O. 1969. Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: Columbia University Press.
Routley, R. 1980. Exploring meinong’s jungle and beyond, Canberra: Australian National University.
Russell, B. 1905. On denoting. Mind 56 (14): 479–493.
Salmon, N. 1998. Nonexistence. Noûs 32:277–319.
Schienke, G. 2005. The spawn of learned hand—a reexamination of copyright protection and fictional characters: How distinctly delineated must the story be told? Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 9:63.
Schiffer, S. 1996. Language-created language-independent entities. Philosophical Topics 24:149–166.
Schiffer, S. 2003. The things we mean, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Schwartz, P., ed. 1977. Naming, necessity and natural kinds. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Searle, J. R. 1979. The logical status of fictional discourse. In Contemporary perspectives in the philosophy of language, ed. P.A. French, et al., 233–243. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
Sparkes, Peter. 2014. Ejectment: Three births and a funeral. In Legal fictions in theory and practice, ed. Maksymilian Del Mar and William Twining. Dordrecht: Springer.
Thomasson, A. L. 1999. Fiction and metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomasson, A. L 2003. Fictional characters and literary practices. British Journal of Aesthetics 43:138–157.
Voltolini, A. 2006. How ficta follow fiction: A syncretistic account of fictional entities. Dordrecht: Springer.
Zalta, E.N. 1983. Abstract objects: An introduction to axiomatic metaphysics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Zalta, E. N. 2000. The road between pretense theory and abstract object theory. In Empty names, fiction, and the puzzles of non-existence, eds. Everett A. and Hofweber T, 117–147. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Acknowledgment
Work on this paper was supported by the RCUK CREATE network grant. We are particularlygrateful for the help provided by our RA Laurence Diver.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schafer, B., Cornwell, J. (2015). Law’s Fictions, Legal Fictions and Copyright Law. In: Del Mar, M., Twining, W. (eds) Legal Fictions in Theory and Practice. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 110. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09232-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09232-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09231-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09232-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)