Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 12 (9), e0184315

Intuitive Intellectual Property Law: A Nationally-Representative Test of the Plagiarism Fallacy


Intuitive Intellectual Property Law: A Nationally-Representative Test of the Plagiarism Fallacy

Anne A Fast et al. PLoS One.


Studies with convenience samples have suggested that the lay public's conception of intellectual property laws, including how the laws should regulate and why they should exist, are largely incommensurate with the actual intended purpose of intellectual property laws and their history in the United States. In this paper, we test whether these findings generalize to a more diverse and representative sample. The major findings from past work were replicated in the current study. When presented with several potential reasons for IP protection, the lay public endorsed plagiarism and felt that acknowledging the original source of a creative work should make copying that work permissible-viewpoints strongly divergent from lawmakers' intent and the law itself. In addition, we replicate the finding that lay people know remarkably little about intellectual property laws more generally and report little experience as users or creators of creative works.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Similar articles

See all similar articles


    1. Mandel GN, Fast AA, Olson KR. Intellectual property law’s plagiarism fallacy. BYU Law Rev. 2016; 915–983.
    1. . Burk DL, Lemley MA. Policy Levers in Patent Law, Virg Law Rev. 2003; 1575 (89): 1597–99.
    1. Hughes J. The Philosophy of Intellectual Property, Georgetown Law Jour. 1988; 287 (77): 296–330.
    1. Radin MJ. Market-inalienability. Harv. L. Rev. 1987; 1849 (100): 1894–95.
    1. Fast AA, Olson KR, Mandel GN. Experimental investigations on the basis for intellectual property rights. Law Hum Beh. 2016; 40(4): 458–476. - PubMed

Grant support

This research was supported by collaborative grants SES-1322514 (KRO) and SES-1324138 (GNM) from the National Science Foundation. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.