Golan v. Holder

Last updated

Golan v. Holder
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 5, 2011
Decided January 18, 2012
Full case nameLawrence Golan, et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.
Docket no. 10-545
Citations565 U.S. 302 ( more )
132 S. Ct. 873; 181 L. Ed. 2d 835
Case history
PriorGolan v. Ashcroft, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (D. Colo. 2004); affirmed sub nom. Golan v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2007); on remand, Golan v. Holder, 611 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Colo. 2009); reversed, 609 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 2010); cert. granted, 562 U.S. 1270(2011).
Holding
"Limited time" language of Copyright Clause does not preclude the extension of copyright protections to works previously in the public domain. Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityGinsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Sotomayor
DissentBreyer, joined by Alito
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Copyright Clause

Golan v. Holder, [lower-alpha 1] 565 U.S. 302 (2012), was a US Supreme Court case that dealt with copyright and the public domain. It held that the "limited time" language of the United States Constitution's Copyright Clause does not preclude the extension of copyright protections to works previously in the public domain.

Contents

In particular, the case challenged the constitutionality of the application of Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994, which implemented the provisions of trade agreements seeking to equalize copyright protection on an international basis. In the United States, the Act newly granted copyright status to foreign works previously in the public domain.

The two main arguments against the application of the Act in the case were that restoring copyright violates the "limited time" language of the United States Constitution's Copyright Clause, and that restoring to copyright works that had passed into the public domain interferes with the people's First Amendment right to use, copy and otherwise exploit the works and to freely express themselves through these works, thus also violating the Constitution's Copyright Clause. [1]

The US Supreme Court held on January 18, 2012 that Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act does not exceed Congress's authority under the Copyright Clause, and the court affirmed the judgment of the lower court by 6–2, with the opinion written by Justice Ginsburg. [2] [1] [3] The practical effect of the decision is to confirm that works that were previously free to use, such as Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf , are no longer in the public domain and are subject to use only with the permission of the copyright holder, such as through paid licensing, until their copyright term expires again. [4]

History

After the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the plaintiffs' challenge to that act in 2004 (Golan v. Ashcroft). [5] The remaining constitutional challenge to the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act was dismissed the following year (Golan v. Gonzales). [6]

The case affected the copyright status of potentially millions of works, [7] including:[ citation needed ]

The case was heard by District Chief Judge Lewis Babcock and was decided by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in 2005. It was appealed at the Tenth Circuit.

On September 4, 2007, Judge Robert H. Henry of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the CTEA claim, as foreclosed by Eldred, and the district court's holding that § 514 of the URAA does not exceed the limitations inherent in the Copyright Clause. [8]

However the Appeals Court did find "Based on the Eldred Court’s analysis, we examine the bedrock principle of copyright law that works in the public domain remain there and conclude that § 514 alters the traditional contours of copyright protection by deviating from this principle" [9] and concluded "since § 514 has altered the traditional contours of copyright protection in a manner that implicates plaintiffs' right to free expression, it must be subject to First Amendment review." [10] It remanded the case to the district court.

U.S. Supreme Court

A related issue was then brought before the court as Golan v. Holder after conductors Lawrence Golan and Richard Kapp filed suit. In a holding published on April 3, 2009, Judge Babcock reversed his earlier finding that the First Amendment was not applicable to resurrecting foreign copyright claims. Judge Babcock found that aspects of the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which brought some works whose copyright had lapsed back under copyright, violated First Amendment rights of so-called reliance parties, [11] i.e., parties who had been using a work formerly in the public domain before the URAA became effective, relying on the work being in the public domain, and who would now no longer be able to do so. [12] He wrote,

In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain. Removing works from the public domain violated Plaintiffs’ vested First Amendment interests. [...] Accordingly—to the extent Section 514 suppresses the right of reliance parties to use works they exploited while the works were in the public domain—Section 514 is substantially broader than necessary to achieve the Government’s interest. [13]

He also indicated a possible solution by suggesting that the protection of reliance parties be made not limited in time. However, further appeals by copyright owners were expected. [14]

On June 21, 2010, the Tenth Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of the government, thus upholding the constitutionality of the URAA copyright restoration. [15] [16] Golan filed for certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States asking for the Court to hear the case. [17] On March 7, 2011, the Court granted the writ of certiorari. [18] [19] Oral argument was held October 5, 2011. [20]

On June 12, 2011, the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP, Petrucci Music Library) announced they would submit an amicus curiae brief in the case; a group of Harvard Law School students, supervised by Professor Charles Nesson, represented IMSLP. [21] Other parties that filed amicus curiae briefs include: [22]

Decision

On January 18, 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit's decision 6–2. The majority opinion was written by Justice Ginsburg and joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomayor. The dissent was written by Justice Breyer and joined by Justice Alito. Justice Kagan recused. [24] [25]

The majority held that "The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne), which took effect in 1886, is the principal accord governing international copyright relations." [2] The court also held that changing the term of copyright for works in such a way that it diminishes or eliminates rights in the work (in this case the right of the public to the works) does not violate the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. [2]

Dissenting opinion

Breyer, dissenting, wrote:

The statute before us, however, does not encourage anyone to produce a single new work. By definition, it bestows monetary rewards only on owners of old works—works that have already been created and already are in the American public domain.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ The full title of the case was Lawrence Golan, Richard Kapp, S.A. Publishing Co., Ind., d/b/a/ ESS.A.Y. Recordings, Symphony of the Canyons, Ron Hall d/b/a/ Festival Films, and John McDonough, d/b/a/ Timeless Video Alternatives International v. Alberto Gonzales, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, and Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office of the United States. The case was originally Golan v. Ashcroft, because John Ashcroft was the Attorney General at the time it was originally filed, and was recaptioned Golan v. Gonzales when Gonzales assumed the office. The case's title later became Golan v. Holder when it was reconsidered, to reflect that the office was occupied by Eric Holder.

Related Research Articles

Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). The practical result of this was to prevent a number of works from entering the public domain in 1998 and following years, as would have occurred under the Copyright Act of 1976. Materials which the plaintiffs had worked with and were ready to republish were now unavailable due to copyright restrictions.

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court modifying its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". It is now referred to as the three-prong standard or the Miller test.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Child Online Protection Act</span> Former U.S. law to protect minors from certain material on the Internet

The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was a law in the United States of America, passed in 1998 with the declared purpose of restricting access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the Internet. The law, however, never took effect, as three separate rounds of litigation led to a permanent injunction against the law in 2009.

Perpetual copyright, also known as indefinite copyright, is copyright that lasts indefinitely. Perpetual copyright arises either when a copyright has no finite term from outset, or when a copyright's original finite term is perpetually extended. The first of these two scenarios is highly uncommon, as the current laws of all countries with copyright statutes set a standard limit on the duration, based either on the date of creation/publication, or on the date of the creator's death. Exceptions have sometimes been made, however, for unpublished works. Usually, special legislation is required, granting a perpetual copyright to a specific work.

Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which public interest in learning about a historical figure's impressions of a historic event was held not to be sufficient to show fair use of material otherwise protected by copyright. Defendant, The Nation, had summarized and quoted substantially from A Time to Heal, President Gerald Ford's forthcoming memoir of his decision to pardon former president Richard Nixon. When Harper & Row, who held the rights to A Time to Heal, brought suit, The Nation asserted that its use of the book was protected under the doctrine of fair use, because of the great public interest in a historical figure's account of a historic incident. The Court rejected this argument holding that the right of first publication was important enough to find in favor of Harper.

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which ruled that the United States Attorney General cannot enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, to terminally ill patients seeking to end their lives, commonly referred to as assisted suicide. It was the first major case heard by the Roberts Court under the new Chief Justice of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uruguay Round Agreements Act</span> US free trade law with implications for intellectual property

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act is an Act of Congress in the United States that implemented in U.S. law the Marrakesh Agreement of 1994. The Marrakesh Agreement was part of the Uruguay Round of negotiations which transformed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) into the World Trade Organization (WTO). One of its effects is to give United States copyright protection to foreign works that had previously been in the public domain in the United States.

The rule of the shorter term, also called the comparison of terms, is a provision in international copyright treaties. The provision allows that signatory countries can limit the duration of copyright they grant to foreign works under national treatment to no more than the copyright term granted in the country of origin of the work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Renewal Act of 1992</span> United States copyright law

Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law  102–307, 106 Stat. 264, enacted June 26, 1992, is the first title of the Copyright Amendments Act of 1992, an act of the United States Congress that amended copyright renewal provisions of Title 17 of the United States Code enacted under Copyright Act of 1976. The act eliminated the previous requirements under US law that a second term of copyright protection is contingent on a renewal registration with the U.S. Copyright Office. It amended the Copyright Act of 1976.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Doe v. Gonzales</span> 2004 US lawsuit

John Doe v. Alberto R. Gonzales was a case in which the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Library Connection, and several then-pseudonymous librarians, challenged Section 2709 of the Patriot Act; it was consolidated on appeal with a separate case, Doe v. Ashcroft.

A public domain film is one that is not protected by copyright. A film can lack copyright protection for various reasons, but often it occurs following the end of a copyright term. Because copyright term varies by country, certain films might be public domain in one country but not another. For example, the film Metropolis entered the United States public domain in 2023, but under current EU copyright law, the film will remain under copyright in Germany and the rest of the European Union until the end of 2046, 70 years after Fritz Lang's death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Term Extension Act</span> United States copyright law

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act – also known as the Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or (derisively) the Mickey Mouse Protection Act – extended copyright terms in the United States in 1998. It is one of several acts extending the terms of copyright.

The Copyright Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1929, are in the public domain.

Richard Kapp was an American conductor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public domain in the United States</span>

Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by the intellectual property right known as copyright, or if the intellectual property rights to the works have expired. Works automatically enter the public domain when their copyright has expired. The United States Copyright Office is a federal agency tasked with maintaining copyright records.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Remedy Clarification Act</span> United States copyright law

The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) is a United States copyright law that attempted to abrogate sovereign immunity of states for copyright infringement. The CRCA amended 17 USC 511(a):

In general. Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal Court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner provided by sections 106 through 122, for importing copies of phonorecords in violation of section 602, or for any other violation under this title.

Evans v. Jordan, 13 U.S. 199 (1815), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that someone who had copied a patented invention after the patent had expired, and before the patent was restored by a private bill, would be liable for damages for patent infringement for any use continuing after the patent was restored. It was the second published Supreme Court decision on patent law, and the first of four Supreme Court cases dealing with the Oliver Evans flour mill patent. Like other Supreme Court patent cases prior to Evans v. Eaton, however, this case did not deal with substantive patent law, but only with issues of statutory construction and infringement liability.

References

  1. 1 2 Denniston, Lyle, (2011-10-04) "Argument preview: Copyright and the public domain", Bloomberg Law, SCOTUSblog
  2. 1 2 3 Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. 302 (2012).
  3. ↑ Liptak, Adam (January 18, 2012). "Public Domain Works Can Be Copyrighted Anew, Supreme Court Rules". The New York Times. Retrieved August 27, 2012.
  4. ↑ Totenberg, Nina, High Court Sides With Man Abandoned By Attorneys, 'Separate Decision Upholds Copyright Law', NPR, 2012-1-18.
  5. ↑ Golan v. Ashcroft, 310F. Supp. 2d1215 ( D. Colo. 2004).
  6. ↑ Golan v. Gonzales, No. 01-B-1854, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6800 (D. Colo April 20, 2005).
  7. ↑ "Revoking the Public Domain?". Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. December 3, 2004. Retrieved April 14, 2011.
  8. ↑ Golan v. Gonzales, 501F.3d1179 ( 10th Cir. 2007).
  9. ↑ Golan, 501 F.3d at 1187-88.
  10. ↑ Golan, 501 F.3d at 1197.
  11. ↑ U.S. Copyright Office: Definition of "reliance party" . URL last accessed January 5, 2010.
  12. ↑ Ochoa, T.: Ochoa on Golan v. Holder and Copyright Restoration , April 6, 2009. URL last accessed January 5, 2010.
  13. ↑ Golan v. Holder, 611F. Supp. 2d1165 (D. Colo.2009).
  14. ↑ Nate Anderson, "Court: Congress can't put public domain back into copyright", Ars Technica , April 6, 2009. Accessed April 6, 2009.
  15. ↑ Golan v. Holder, 609F.3d1076 (10th Cir.2010).
  16. ↑ Stanford Center for Internet and Society: Golan v. Gonzales Archived 2007-05-09 at the Wayback Machine
  17. ↑ Falzone, Anthony (February 20, 2011). "(Updated) Golan v. Holder Heads To Supreme Court". The Center for Internet and Technology. Stanford University. Retrieved February 20, 2011.
  18. ↑ Golan v. Holder, 562 U.S. 1270(2011).
  19. ↑ Falzone, Anthony (March 7, 2011). "Supreme Court grants cert. in Golan v. Holder". The Center for Internet and Technology. Stanford University. Retrieved March 7, 2011.
  20. ↑ "Golan v. Holder (10-545)". Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved September 23, 2011.
  21. ↑ "Golan v. Holder: Should Shostakovich be Public Domain?" by Feldmahler, IMSLP journal, June 12, 2011. Accessed June 15, 2011
  22. ↑ "Docket 10-545: Proceedings and Orders". Supreme Court of the United States . Retrieved September 30, 2011.
  23. ↑ "EFF Urges Supreme Court to Block Law That Erodes Public Domain". June 21, 2011.
  24. ↑ Gagnier, Christina (January 18, 2012). "SCOTUS Adds More Fuel to the Copyright Debate With Golan V. Holder". Huffington Post. Retrieved January 19, 2012.
  25. ↑ SCOTUS blog post

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.