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

Posted 09 March 2011 09:00 CEST 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.

Blown to smitherines
Posted on: 09 Mar 11 12:18
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.
0 Agree

MyCE Senior Member
Posted on: 09 Mar 11 18:00
5 years sounds good. Then I can finally download The Hurt Locker in 2016 without the worries.
0 Agree

Blown to smitherines
Posted on: 09 Mar 11 23:41
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 ....
0 Agree

Senior Moderator
Posted on: 10 Mar 11 03:39
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?
0 Agree

New Member
Posted on: 10 Mar 11 19:11
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.
0 Agree

Reactions closed

Sorry, you can't comment on this item anymore. It's either too old or comments are disabled for this post. settings

Several settings at can be changed, they are stored in cookies, which means they will be reset if you clear cookies


Change the background to a plain color or trianglified image (similar to the default image)

No tracking features

At Myce most social media feature are done server side and impose no privacy risk to the visitor when not used. Several features use Javascript with you can turn off here


Switch to the List layout for an index with chronologycally listed news items or Grid layout for a block based layout. To see the change you need to reload the page