<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Christopher J. Buccafusco</title>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2012  All rights reserved.</copyright>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1</link>
<description>Recent documents in Christopher J. Buccafusco</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:37:17 PST</lastBuildDate>
<ttl>3600</ttl>








<item>
<title>Review of David H. Kaye, The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence, 29 Law and History Review 642</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/10</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/10</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:42:58 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Christopher J. Buccafusco</author>


<category>Evidence</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>The Creativity Effect (with C. Sprigman)</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/9</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/9</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:42:38 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Christopher J. Buccafusco</author>


<category>Intellectual Property</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Retribution and the Experience of Punishment</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/8</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/8</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:54:21 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Christopher J. Buccafusco et al.</author>


<category>Law &amp; Psychology</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Valuing Intellectual Property: An Experiment</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/7</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/7</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:11:16 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Christopher J. Buccafusco et al.</author>


<category>Law &amp; Psychology</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Welfare as Happiness (with J. Bronsteen &amp; J. Masur)</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/6</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/6</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:48:03 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Christopher J. Buccafusco</author>


<category>Law &amp; Psychology</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Gaining/Losing Perspective on the Law, or Keeping Visual Evidence in Perspective</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/5</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/5</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:04:44 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Christopher J. Buccafusco</author>


<category>Evidence</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Gaining/Losing Perspective on the Law, or Keeping Visual Evidence in Perspective</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/4</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/4</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:01:18 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Christopher J. Buccafusco</author>


<category>Evidence</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>On the Legal Consequences of Sauces: Should Thomas Keller&apos;s Recipes Be Per Se Copyrightable?</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/3</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/3</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:50:01 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>The restaurant industry now takes in over $500 billion a year, but recent courts have been skeptical of the notion that one of its most valuable assets, original recipes, are subject to copyright protection. With more litigation looming and the contours of the debate insufficiently mapped out, this article establishes the appropriate groundwork for analyzing the copyrightability of recipes. I show that, contrary to recent appellate court opinions, recipes meet the statutory requirements for copyrightability. I argue, by analogizing to musical compositions, that written recipes work to satisfy the fixation requirement of copyright law just as musical notation does for compositions. Accordingly, the "dish" is the final work of authorship, the recipe is the fixation medium, and the various cooking techniques - braising, grilling, sous vide - are the potentially patentable processes. In order to meet copyright law's requirement of originality, though, the work must be deemed expressive. To determine whether and how recipes are expressive, I interviewed some of America's best chefs, each of whom claimed to use recipes to express various ideas and emotions.   Since there are no doctrinal limitations to recipes' copyrightability, in Part II, I offer reasons for the late recognition as protectable works. First, I consider the marginalized status of the sense of taste in the history of Western aesthetic philosophy. For many philosophers, only objects that presented themselves to the eyes and ears, such as music, painting, and literature, could be truly beautiful. Partly out of the fear that fancy foods can lead to gluttony, Western, and more specifically Anglo-American writers have often tried to limit cuisine to its fundamentally nutritive components, further isolating it from the realm of creative expression. Furthermore, the producers of cuisine have been treated no better than their products. Throughout history cooking has been the province of lowly household servants and housewives, with only a select few chefs rising to the status of artisan. Chefs rose from the ranks of obscurity far more slowly than did writers, painters, and musicians. Finally, chefs have a long history of directly copying recipes and dishes from their predecessors, suggesting that the norms of Romantic original authorship formed much later in cuisine than in other arts.   In Part III, I return to the law to consider whether the copyright monopoly should be extended to culinary creations. Chefs are not likely to take serious advantage of copyrights, as the time and money necessary for suit would rarely be worth the benefit. The chefs I interviewed were uncomfortable with the idea of owning their recipes, and they all approved of others using their recipes, subject to certain limits. Increased innovation is also unlikely as a more robust intellectual property regime would likely inhibit chefs' willingness to experiment with other chefs' dishes. Furthermore, the public domain would not see any meaningful increase, because few chefs who currently keep their recipes secret will be persuaded to publish them to obtain the limited benefits of copyright. The article concludes by arguing that formal copyright protection is not necessary for culinary creation, because a vibrant system of social norms already exists to sanction plagiarism, encourage attribution, and reward innovation. Thus, although recipes meet the formal doctrinal requirements of copyright law, an extension of the monopoly is neither necessary nor appropriate at this time.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Christopher J. Buccafusco</author>


<category>Intellectual Property</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Hedonic Adaptation and the Settlement of Civil Lawsuits (with J. Bronsteen &amp; J. Masur)</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/2</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/2</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:48:09 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>This paper examines the burgeoning psychological literature on happiness and hedonic adaptation (a person's capacity to preserve or recapture her level of happiness by adjusting to changed circumstances), bringing this literature to bear on a previously overlooked aspect of the civil litigation process: the probability of pre-trial settlement. The glacial pace of civil litigation is commonly thought of as a regrettable source of costs to the relevant parties. Even relatively straightforward personal injury lawsuits can last for as long as two years, delaying the arrival of necessary redress to the tort victim and forcing the litigants to expend ever greater quantities of resources. Yet these procedural delays are likely to have salutary effects on the litigation system as well. When an individual first suffers a serious injury, she will likely predict that the injury will greatly diminish her future happiness. However, during the time that it takes her case to reach trial the aggrieved plaintiff is likely to adapt hedonically to her injury - even if that injury is permanent - and within two years will report levels of happiness very close to her pre-injury state. Consequently, the amount of money that the plaintiff believes will fairly compensate her for her injury - will make her whole, in the typical parlance of tort damages - will decrease appreciably. The sum that the plaintiff is willing to accept in settlement will decline accordingly, and the chances of settlement increase - perhaps dramatically. The high costs of prolonged civil litigation are thus likely to be offset substantially by the resources saved as adaptive litigants succeed in settling before trial.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Christopher J. Buccafusco</author>


<category>Law &amp; Psychology</category>

</item>






<item>
<title>Happiness and Punishment (with J. Bronsteen &amp; J. Masur)</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/1</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/christopher_buccafusco1/1</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:45:06 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>This article continues our project to apply groundbreaking new literature on the behavioral psychology of human happiness to some of the most deeply analyzed questions in law. Here we explain that the new psychological understandings of happiness interact in startling ways with the leading theories of criminal punishment. Punishment theorists, both retributivist and utilitarian, have failed to account for human beings' ability to adapt to changed circumstances, including fines and (surprisingly) imprisonment. At the same time, these theorists have largely ignored the severe hedonic losses brought about by the post-prison social and economic deprivations (unemployment, divorce, and disease) caused by even short periods of incarceration. These twin phenomena significantly disrupt efforts to attain proportionality between crime and punishment and to achieve effective marginal deterrence. Hedonic psychology thus threatens to upend conventional conceptions of punishment and requires retributivists and utilitarians to find novel methods of calibrating traditional punitive sanctions if they are to maintain the foundations upon which punishment theory rests.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Christopher J. Buccafusco</author>


<category>Law &amp; Psychology</category>

</item>





</channel>
</rss>

