Copyright and the Vagueness Doctrine

Bradley E. Abruzzi

Berkman Center for Internet & Society

April 11, 2011

The Constitution’s void-for-vagueness doctrine is itself vaguely stated. The law does little to describe at what point vague laws - other than those that are entirely standardless - might be unconstitutionally vague. Rather than explore this territory, the Supreme Court has identified three "collateral factors" that affect its inclination to invalidate a law for vagueness, including (1) whether the law burdens the exercise of constitutional rights, (2) whether the law is punitive in nature, and (3) whether the law overlays a defendant-protective scienter requirement. Against this backdrop, it is fair to say that copyright law, in its current configuration, does not meet the vagueness doctrine’s minimum requirements of fair notice to the public. Copyright by its terms restricts free speech; the law’s prolixity frustrates ex ante assessment of what speech is lawful. The question whether speech infringes copyright requires reference to a multiplicity of top-level interlocking questions or doctrines - each with its own manifold of subsidiary legal issues. Still more troubling is the uncertainty that inheres in "substantial similarity" and fair use, the very copyright doctrines that are generally held to rescue copyright from charges of First Amendment overbreadth. This Article argues that although a case can be made that copyright is unconstitutionally vague, invalidation of all or any portion of the Copyright Act is unlikely and not constructive. Reforms undertaken specifically to cure copyright’s indeterminacy are not likely to be effective, either. However, a consideration of the vagueness doctrine’s collateral factors and how they apply to copyright suggests an appropriate reform of the law. For cases involving expressive use of copyrighted content, lawmakers should adopt a three-tiered system of civil infringement liability by which strict liability is preserved in cases brought for injunctive relief only, while suits for statutory and actual damages require proof of willful and negligent infringement, respectively.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 76

Keywords: copyright, fair use, substantial similarity, constitution, first amendment, free expression, vagueness, scienter

JEL Classification: K13, K19, K39

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: April 12, 2011  

Suggested Citation

Abruzzi, Bradley E., Copyright and the Vagueness Doctrine (April 11, 2011). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1807197 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1807197

Contact Information

Bradley E. Abruzzi (Contact Author)
Berkman Center for Internet & Society ( email )
Harvard Law School
23 Everett, 2nd Floor
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,730
Downloads: 66
Download Rank: 248,121
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 1.812 seconds