the evolution of robin thicke robin thicke rym

Indirect proof of copying is provided by evidence creating an inference that the defendant copied – typically a combination of evidence of access to the plaintiff’s work and similarities probative of copying. While copyright infringement requires proof of copying, mere copying is not the end of the inquiry, as “rivial copying is a significant part of modern life.” Thus, proof of copying, or “copying-in-fact,” is only a threshold issue for proving infringement.Ĭopying-in-fact can be shown through direct evidence, such as testimony, but with witnesses and honest thieves often lacking, copying is most often shown by circumstantial evidence. By instead relying on the impossibly vague “substantial similarity” test, courts have crafted an impressionistic doctrine that has drifted far from copyright’s original economic purpose of incentivizing creation. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, since at least 1903 courts have side-stepped clearly defining foundational concepts such as “originality,” “authorship,” and “infringement.” As such, they have failed to provide a meaningful methodology for determining when a work infringes the copyright of another. By refusing to acknowledge the aesthetic judgments inherent in determining copyright disputes, American courts have plagued our copyright law with subjective bias and doctrinal confusion.

The evolution of robin thicke robin thicke rym