真相,谎言和版权

Cathay Y. N. Smith
{"title":"真相,谎言和版权","authors":"Cathay Y. N. Smith","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3205346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Fake news may be trending right now, but fake news is not the only source of fake facts that we consume. We encounter fake facts every day in the historical or biographical books we read, the movies we watch, the maps we study, the telephone directories and dictionaries we reference, and the religious or spiritual guides we consult. While it is well-established that copyright does not protect facts because facts are discovered rather than created, fake facts are created and can often be as original and creative as fiction. \n \nThis paper is the first to offer a comprehensive analysis of copyright protection of fake facts contained in fake news and other sources. It details the different categories of fake facts we encounter today and courts’ inconsistent protection of fake facts under copyright law. Even though copyright law may technically protect fake facts as original expression fixed in a tangible medium, this paper argues that the public interest in promoting efficiency, fairness, and production of socially-valuable works justify treating fake facts as unprotectable facts under copyright law. Specifically, courts should apply copyright law’s factual estoppel doctrine to treat fake facts as unprotectable facts in infringement cases where an author previously held out fake facts as facts, with the intent that the public rely on the fake facts as facts, if the public could believe the fake facts to be true.","PeriodicalId":198476,"journal":{"name":"Nevada Law Journal","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Truth, Lies, and Copyright\",\"authors\":\"Cathay Y. N. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3205346\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Fake news may be trending right now, but fake news is not the only source of fake facts that we consume. We encounter fake facts every day in the historical or biographical books we read, the movies we watch, the maps we study, the telephone directories and dictionaries we reference, and the religious or spiritual guides we consult. While it is well-established that copyright does not protect facts because facts are discovered rather than created, fake facts are created and can often be as original and creative as fiction. \\n \\nThis paper is the first to offer a comprehensive analysis of copyright protection of fake facts contained in fake news and other sources. It details the different categories of fake facts we encounter today and courts’ inconsistent protection of fake facts under copyright law. Even though copyright law may technically protect fake facts as original expression fixed in a tangible medium, this paper argues that the public interest in promoting efficiency, fairness, and production of socially-valuable works justify treating fake facts as unprotectable facts under copyright law. Specifically, courts should apply copyright law’s factual estoppel doctrine to treat fake facts as unprotectable facts in infringement cases where an author previously held out fake facts as facts, with the intent that the public rely on the fake facts as facts, if the public could believe the fake facts to be true.\",\"PeriodicalId\":198476,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nevada Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nevada Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3205346\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nevada Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3205346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

假新闻现在可能很流行,但假新闻并不是我们消费的假事实的唯一来源。我们每天都会在我们读的历史或传记书中,在我们看的电影中,在我们研究的地图中,在我们参考的电话簿和字典中,在我们咨询的宗教或精神指南中遇到虚假的事实。众所周知,版权并不保护事实,因为事实是发现而不是创造出来的,但假事实是创造出来的,而且往往和小说一样具有原创性和创造性。本文首次对假新闻和其他来源中包含的假事实的版权保护进行了全面分析。它详细介绍了我们今天遇到的不同类别的虚假事实,以及法院在版权法下对虚假事实的不一致保护。尽管版权法在技术上可以将虚假事实作为固定在有形媒介上的原创表达加以保护,但本文认为,促进效率、公平和生产具有社会价值作品的公共利益证明,将虚假事实作为版权法下不受保护的事实是合理的。具体而言,法院应适用著作权法的事实禁止反言原则,在侵权案件中,如果作者先前将虚假事实作为事实,意图使公众相信虚假事实是真实的,则将虚假事实视为不可保护的事实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Truth, Lies, and Copyright
Fake news may be trending right now, but fake news is not the only source of fake facts that we consume. We encounter fake facts every day in the historical or biographical books we read, the movies we watch, the maps we study, the telephone directories and dictionaries we reference, and the religious or spiritual guides we consult. While it is well-established that copyright does not protect facts because facts are discovered rather than created, fake facts are created and can often be as original and creative as fiction. This paper is the first to offer a comprehensive analysis of copyright protection of fake facts contained in fake news and other sources. It details the different categories of fake facts we encounter today and courts’ inconsistent protection of fake facts under copyright law. Even though copyright law may technically protect fake facts as original expression fixed in a tangible medium, this paper argues that the public interest in promoting efficiency, fairness, and production of socially-valuable works justify treating fake facts as unprotectable facts under copyright law. Specifically, courts should apply copyright law’s factual estoppel doctrine to treat fake facts as unprotectable facts in infringement cases where an author previously held out fake facts as facts, with the intent that the public rely on the fake facts as facts, if the public could believe the fake facts to be true.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信