Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2121938
 


 



Copyright Essentialism and the Performativity of Remedies


Andrew Gilden


Stanford Law School

August 1, 2012

William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2013
Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2121938

Abstract:     
This article critically examines the interrelationship between substantive copyright protections and the remedies available for infringement. Drawing from constitutional remedies scholarship and post-structural theories of performativity, it argues that a court’s awareness of its likely remedy award in a particular dispute — combined with its normative view of how future actors should address similar disputes — “reaches back” and shapes the determination of the parties’ respective rights.

Copyright scholars have long sought to limit the availability of injunctive relief, and several recent court decisions have adopted this reform. For example, in Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010), the Second Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction against a critical reinterpretation of The Catcher in the Rye, setting forth a new preliminary injunction standard that expressly requires a court to consider the First Amendment interests of the parties and the public. In the same opinion, however, the court in a single paragraph affirmed “in the interest of judicial economy” the district court’s widely-derided rejection of Fredrik Colting’s fair use defense. This article suggests that this was no coincidence. It demonstrates that limits on available remedies have the potential to lead to the expansion of substantive rights, further entrenching dominant interests within the copyright system under the guise of protecting free speech and expression.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 62

Keywords: copyright, remedies, essentialism, performativity, First Amendment, intellectual property

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: August 2, 2012 ; Last revised: July 31, 2013

Suggested Citation

Gilden, Andrew, Copyright Essentialism and the Performativity of Remedies (August 1, 2012). William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2013; Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2121938. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2121938

Contact Information

Andrew Gilden (Contact Author)
Stanford Law School ( email )
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 541
Downloads: 67
Download Rank: 193,687

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.390 seconds