Latest Updates

Supreme Court to hear case on re-copyrighting public domain works

Posted at 09 March 2011 09:00 CET by wconeybeer

The United States Supreme Court announced on Monday that it has accepted a case that will decide whether artistic works, including films and music, that are considered part of the public domain can be placed back under copyright protection where those other than the creator must pay to use them.

The case originated a decade ago, when University of Denver music professor Lawrence Golan and others filed a lawsuit against the US government in reaction to a 1994 amendment to the Copyright Act, known as the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), which put certain works by foreign artists back under copyright protection to comply with international treaties. Golan and his supporters maintain that the actions of the URAA make it too expensive for groups like small symphonies, which Golan makes a living from conducting, to perform classic works such as composer Sergei Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf.

“It really affected a lot of people in a lot of communities in a negative way from a cultural standpoint,” Golan said.

Other works affected include early Alfred Hitchcock films, some works by J.R.R. Tolkien, and many other classic films, musical compositions, and writings.

According to the Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari issued in the case, the Supreme Court will attempt to answer these two questions:

  1. Does the Progress Clause of the United States Constitution prohibit Congress from taking works out of the Public Domain?
  2. Does Section 514 (URAA) violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?

“This statute [URAA] throws into question one of the most basic premises of intellectual property: once a work of authorship is placed in the Public Domain, it belongs to the public, and remains the property of the public,” says Anthony Falzone, the executive director of the Stanford University Fair Use Project, the group which is representing Golan’s side of the case. “That principle was respected for more than 200 years, because it represents a critical limit on the intellectual property ‘monopoly’ the framers authorized. What Congress did here represents a huge departure from those basic principles with substantial constitutional ramifications.”

So far, the case has been heard two times each in both federal District Court and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. During the last round in June, 10th Circuit Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe decided that complying with the URAA and allowing re-copyrighting is necessary to also protect American works in foreign countries.

“Around the globe American works were being exploited without the copyright owners’ consent and without providing compensation,” Briscoe wrote.

According to Falzone, the Supreme Court will hear the case in the fall after starting its next term, which begins in October.

This is definitely going to be a huge case to watch this fall. While I understand and respect that artists and creators feel the need for protection of their work, I do also think it would be a shame if the next generations are unable to experience classic productions and musical pieces like I enjoyed as a child. It will not be easy to come to an agreement on the issue.

Click for more news


Click to share

There are 5 comments

Blown to smitherines
Posted on: 09 Mar 11 13:18
    Wtf .. seriously ... wtf?

    The swiss banks with nameless numbered accounts must be REALLY popular these days ...

    Most of the original artists mentioned died decades ago, somewhere between 1/2 and 1 century ago.
    Copyright should die with the original creator ... if we're compassionate, let copyright companies milk it for upto 5 years from original creation date.
    MyCE Senior Member
    Posted on: 09 Mar 11 19:00
      5 years sounds good. Then I can finally download The Hurt Locker in 2016 without the worries.
      Blown to smitherines
      Posted on: 10 Mar 11 00:41
        Originally Posted by Zzyzxroad
        5 years sounds good. Then I can finally download The Hurt Locker in 2016 without the worries.
        The Hurt Locker is not worth the time to read the title ....
        Senior Moderator
        Posted on: 10 Mar 11 04:39
          Aw Jeez. It's always been my dream to own a Roger Corman movie. Now them Supreme Beings are gonna try to bar me from doing so?
          New Member
          Posted on: 10 Mar 11 20:11
            In my opinion copyright and patent rights should have an expiration date... Think about it... How many inventions have been made, but haven't been implemented on a large scale because some big companies hold the patents and making it either not available or too expensive too implement... I mean that what stops the progress. Lots of fuel efficient patents are being held by oil companies, etc.

            Post your comment

            You need to register before you can comment

            Like us

            Most popular headlines

            Intel reports breakthrough in SSD costs - to release 10TB SSDs

            Intel plans to release SSDs based on 3D NAND in 2015 with "disruptive cost&...

            VirusBulletin tests 48 antivirus scanner for Windows 8.1 - Avast doesn't pass

            Antivirus test organisation Virus Bulletin has tested 48 virus scanners for Wind...

            Avast antivirus hangs and slows down computers after Windows 8.1 update

            A recent update to Windows 8.1 causes  issues with  Avast antivirus. U...

            Windows 10 build with kernel version 10.0 pops up - OneCore ready?

            The Chinese website and Russian AngelWZR report that a new build...

            More details on Quark Seal Beach SoC revealed in leaked Intel roadmap

            We've obtained more information on Intel's Internet of Things (IoT) system on a ...

            See all headlines