Skip to main content
PRINT EDITION

The Grapes of Roth

By December 1, 2024January 15th, 2025No Comments

Abstract: Shortly after Roth Greeting Cards was decided in 1970, its offhand reference to the “total concept and feel” of the cards at issue became the dominant standard in copyright law for determining whether two works were substantially similar. That is a remarkable achievement for a phrase that, in the words of the influential Nimmer treatise, “threatens to subvert the very essence of copyright.” It nevertheless had enormous appeal for federal judges, and the reason extends well beyond copyright law. “Total concept and feel” appeared at a critical juncture for the federal judiciary, as an older model of decision-making, based on discretion and reason, yielded to a more formalized process. For a time, the phrase allowed judges in copyright cases to continue using their discretion and aesthetic judgment in a legal world that had grown cold to both of those things.

The history of “total concept and feel” in copyright law thus opens a window on an important but underappreciated transition point in the law, one that occurred in the 1960s with reverberations that continue to the present day. The history related here shows how judges first attempted to pay tribute to formalism with capacious doctrine, a maneuver that allowed them to retain decision-making power in infringement cases at a time when jury trials were rare and summary judgment standards only loosely observed. But “total concept and feel” provided only fleeting respite from the rise of formalism. The same forces that pushed judges to adopt a new definition of substantial similarity eventually took that decision away from them entirely, placing it instead with juries, with anarchic results.

This history demonstrates two things. First, while copyright scholars tend to view the development of infringement doctrine as an unbroken chain of events, in fact copyright precedents come from three distinct eras, each with its own method of decision-making. The ready availability of judicial discretion in earlier eras can no longer be presumed. But second, the use of informed discretion in resolving copyright disputes is not so easily forgone. Even now, after discretion became anathema at trial and then at summary judgment, it is nevertheless reappearing at the pleadings stage as courts increasingly grant motions to dismiss. This development suggests that it would be better to end the “total concept and feel” maneuver and give judges and juries the information they need to make better decisions.

Download the Full Article

Other Articles from WLR Print Edition

December 1, 2024 in PRINT EDITION

How Detrimental is Transunion v. Ramirez, Really? Understanding the Impact on Environmental Law

Abstract: In 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued a controversial opinion with the potential to constrict the standing doctrine. TransUnion v. Ramirez appeared to alter standing’s “concrete harm” requirement, which would…
Read More
December 1, 2024 in PRINT EDITION

Abdication of Power: Arizona v. Navajo Nation and Judicial Refusal to Enforce the Federal Trust Relationship

Abstract: Over 150 years ago, the federal government signed a treaty promising the Navajo people a permanent home within the bounds of their ancestral homeland. To this day, that promise…
Read More
December 1, 2024 in PRINT EDITION

Adverse Elements: How Requiring an Adverse Employment Action Element in ADA Failure-to-Accommodate Claims Hinders Disability Rights

Abstract: Individuals with disabilities are continuously marginalized by a world tailored to the able-bodied. One of the most visible areas where this marginalization manifests is employment. The Americans with Disabilities…
Read More