The Property in Intellectual Property: Reputation Is Harder to Share Than Ideas

Intellectual property (IP) law is designed to protect the ownership of ideas and stimulate innovation, yet pervasive non-compliance suggests a deep divide between legal mandates and public moral intuitions. We argue that this divergence is primarily driven by the fact that moral intuitions about IP are driven by reputation misattribution-situations in which rightful creators are denied due credit while undeserving parties receive undue recognition. In Study 1, we experimentally manipulate key dimensions of reputation misattribution within plagiarism scenarios and find that even subtle changes in reputation misallocation lead to significant shifts in moral judgment. In Study 2, we extend these findings to a range of IP-related contexts, including pseudonymous publication, ghostwriting, and AI-generated content, demonstrating that reputation misallocation consistently predicts moral evaluations regardless of the legal status of the act. These results clarify why some IP violations are condemned more harshly or excused more readily than the law would suggest and highlight the potential for aligning legal frameworks with intrinsic moral expectations rooted in reputational fairness to enhance compliance and legitimacy in IP governance.