A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SUBCONSCIOUS COPYING DOCTRINE

Abstract

The copyright law's notion of subconscious copying has generated a great deal of discussion and controversy. The concept of subconscious copying is evaluated critically in this article, which also explores the key arguments for and against it. The philosophy is essentially based on the notion that people may unintentionally produce works that are strikingly similar to works that already exist due to subconscious influences. Inconsistencies in court rulings result from variations in the doctrine's application and interpretation across various legal systems. 
 The article highlights the standards that courts apply to assess whether subconscious copying has taken place and explores significant court judgments that have developed the notion of subconscious copying. While some courts place a strong emphasis on the availability of the original work and the degree of likeness, other courts value time distance as a crucial consideration. The article also contrasts the techniques taken by various legal systems, including the strict liability system in the US and the necessity of a causal connection in the UK and Canada.
 In conclusion, the notion of subconscious copying is still a complicated and divisive topic in copyright law. Although it makes an effort to overcome the difficulties caused by unintentional impacts on creativity, its application and justification face considerable difficulties. The article advocates for a fair strategy that takes into account the needs of both the public and intellectual property rights' integrity.