`================================================================
`In The
`Supreme Court of the United States
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`LAWRENCE GOLAN et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. et al.,
`Respondents.
`
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`On Writ Of Certiorari To The
`United States Court Of Appeals
`For The Tenth Circuit
`
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
`
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`THOMAS C. GOLDSTEIN
`AMY HOWE
`KEVIN K. RUSSELL
`GOLDSTEIN, HOWE &
` RUSSELL, P.C.
`7272 Wisconsin Ave.
`Suite 300
`Bethesda, MD 20814
`PAMELA S. KARLAN
`STANFORD LAW SCHOOL
` SUPREME COURT
` LITIGATION CLINIC
`559 Nathan Abbott Way
`Stanford, CA 94305
`
`ANTHONY T. FALZONE
` Counsel of Record
`JULIE A. AHRENS
`DANIEL K. NAZER
`STANFORD LAW SCHOOL
` CENTER FOR INTERNET
` AND SOCIETY
`559 Nathan Abbott Way
`Stanford, CA 94305
`(650) 736-9050
`falzone@stanford.edu
`HUGH Q. GOTTSCHALK
`CAROLYN J. FAIRLESS
`WHEELER TRIGG
` O’DONNELL LLP
`1801 California St., Suite 3600
`Denver, CO 80202
`================================================================
`COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964
`OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
`
`
`
`i
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`
`Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements
`
`Act of 1994 granted copyright protection to millions
`of works that the Copyright Act had placed in the
`public domain of the United States, where they had
`remained for years as the common property of all
`Americans and free to use without restriction. The
`questions presented here are:
`
`1. Does the Copyright Clause of the United
`
`States Constitution prohibit Congress from taking
`works out of the public domain?
`
`2. Does Section 514 violate the First Amend-
`
`ment of the United States Constitution?
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`
`Petitioners are Lawrence Golan, Estate of Richard
`
`Kapp, S.A. Publishing Co., Inc., d/b/a Ess.A.Y. Record-
`ings, Symphony of the Canyons, Ron Hall, d/b/a
`Festival Films, and John McDonough, d/b/a Timeless
`Video Alternatives International. Petitioners certify
`that they have no parent corporation, nor do any
`publicly held corporations own 10% or more of their
`stock. Respondents are Eric H. Holder, Jr., in his
`official capacity as Attorney General of the United
`States, and Maria Pallante, in her official capacity as
`Register of Copyrights.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED ..................................
`i
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND COR-
`ii
`PORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .............
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... vi
`BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS .........................
`1
`OPINIONS BELOW ...............................................
`1
`JURISDICTION .....................................................
`1
`RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATU-
`2
`TORY PROVISIONS ...........................................
`2
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ....................... 14
`ARGUMENT ........................................................... 18
`
`I. Section 514 Violates The Specific Limita-
`tions Of The Copyright Clause .................... 19
`A. The Text Of The Copyright Clause
`Shows Congress Cannot Remove Works
`From The Public Domain ...................... 20
`B. The Framers Intended To Create A
`Permanent And Stable Public Domain
`From Which Works Could Not Be Re-
`moved ..................................................... 25
`C. Two Centuries Of Unbroken Practice
`Confirm That Congress Cannot Remove
`Works From The Public Domain ........... 31
`
`
`
`iv
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued
`
`Page
` II. Section 514 Violates The First Amendment ... 41
`A. Section 514 Is Subject To First Amend-
`ment Scrutiny Because It Alters The
`Traditional Contours Of Copyright
`Protection ............................................... 42
`B. Section 514 Fails Intermediate Scru-
`tiny And Is Substantially Overbroad .... 47
`1. The Interest In Promoting The
`Rights Of U.S. Authors Abroad
`Cannot Justify Section 514 .............. 48
`2. The Government’s Interest In Com-
`plying With The Berne Convention
`Cannot Justify Section 514 .............. 51
`a. There Was No Substantial Evi-
`dence Of Any Harm .................... 52
`b. Section 514 Is Not Narrowly
`Tailored Because The United
`States Could Have Complied
`With Berne While Burdening
`Substantially Less Speech ......... 54
`i.
` Berne Permits Negotiated
`Exceptions To Restoration
`Requirements ...................... 54
` Berne Permits Complete
`And Permanent Protection
`For Reliance Parties Like
`Petitioners ........................... 56
`
`ii.
`
`
`
`v
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued
`
`Page
`iii. Berne Permits The United
`States To Provide Shorter
`Terms Of Protection For
`Many Restored Works, And
`More Protection For Exist-
`ing Copies Of Restored
`Works ................................... 59
` III. Congress Cannot Avoid The Explicit Re-
`strictions Of The Copyright Clause Or The
`First Amendment By Invoking Other Pow-
`ers ................................................................. 62
`CONCLUSION ....................................................... 65
`
`
`
`vi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58
`(1963) ....................................................................... 45
`Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339
`(1908) ....................................................................... 60
`Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.,
`489 U.S. 141 (1989) ................................................. 22
`Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988) ...................... 51, 61
`Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111
`U.S. 53 (1884) .......................................................... 20
`Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of Am., Inc., 830
`N.E.2d 250 (N.Y. 2005) ........................................... 32
`Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376
`U.S. 234 (1964) .................................................. 21, 22
`Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film
`Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) ................................ passim
`Donaldson v. Beckett, 4 Burr. 2408, 98 Eng.
`Rep. 257, 2 Bro. PC 129, 1 Eng. Rep. 837, 17
`Cobb. Parl. Hist. 953 (H.L. 1774) ............... 27, 32, 33
`Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ............. passim
`Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) .......... 32
`Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Servs. Co., Inc.,
`499 U.S. 340 (1991) ........................................... 20, 22
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Ka-
`bushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722 (2002) ................... 25
`Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) ............ 24
`
`
`
`vii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123 (1932) ..... 24, 49
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) ..... passim
`Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation En-
`ters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985) ........................................ 43
`Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States,
`379 U.S. 241 (1964) ................................................. 62
`Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual
`Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) .................... 45
`Ibanez v. Bd. of Accountancy, 512 U.S. 136
`(1994) ....................................................................... 51
`Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938) ............. 46
`Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303, 98 Eng. Rep. 201
`(K.B. 1769) ............................................................... 27
`Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) ............ 62, 64
`N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713
`(1971) ....................................................................... 46
`New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345
`(1921) ....................................................................... 31
`New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) ........ 63
`Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprie-
`tors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837) .............. 28
`Railway Labor Executives Ass’n v. Gibbons, 455
`U.S. 457 (1982) .................................................. 63, 64
`Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) ................... 51, 63, 64
`Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S.
`225 (1964) .......................................................... 27, 28
`
`
`
`viii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y.
`State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991) ....... 45
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios,
`Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ............................. 24, 43, 49
`Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) ................ 23
`Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879) ...................... 62
`Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622
`(1994) ............................................... 47, 48, 50, 51, 53
`Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180
`(1997) ....................................................................... 50
`Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422
`U.S. 151 (1975) ........................................................ 43
`United States v. Martignon, 492 F.3d 140 (2d
`Cir. 2007) ................................................................. 63
`United States v. Moghadam, 175 F.3d 1269
`(11th Cir. 1999) ........................................................ 63
`United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) ........... 48
`Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., 445 U.S.
`308 (1980) ................................................................ 45
`Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better
`Environment, 444 U.S. 620 (1980) ......................... 47
`Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781
`(1989) ................................................................. 45, 46
`Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834)........... 32
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`MASS. CONST. pt. II, ch. 5, § 2 ..................................... 29
`U.S. CONST. amend I ........................................... passim
`U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8 ................................. passim
`
`
`STATUTES
`17 U.S.C. § 104A ................................................. passim
`17 U.S.C. § 109 ................................................... passim
`Act of Apr. 29, 1802, ch. 36, 2 Stat. 171 ..................... 34
`Act of Feb. 3, 1831, ch. 16, 4 Stat. 436 ....................... 34
`Act of Aug. 18, 1856, ch. 169, 11 Stat. 138 ................. 34
`Act of Mar. 3, 1865, ch. 126, § 1, 13 Stat. 540 ........... 34
`Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 230, 16 Stat. 198 ................... 35
`Act of Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 565, § 13, 26 Stat. 1106 ........ 35
`Act of Dec. 18, 1919, Pub. L. No. 66-102
` 41 Stat. 368 ............................................................ 39
`Act of Sept. 25, 1941, Pub. L. No. 77-258,
`55 Stat. 732 ....................................................... 39, 40
`Act of Sept. 19, 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-668,
`76 Stat. 555 ............................................................. 37
`Act of Aug. 28, 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-142,
`79 Stat. 581 ............................................................. 37
`Act of Nov. 16, 1967, Pub. L. No. 90-141,
`81 Stat. 464 ............................................................. 37
`
`
`
`x
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`Act of July 23, 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-416,
`82 Stat. 397 ............................................................. 37
`Act of Dec. 16, 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-147,
`83 Stat. 360 ............................................................. 37
`Act of Dec. 17, 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-555,
`84 Stat. 1441 ........................................................... 37
`Act of Oct. 15, 1971, Pub. L. No. 92-140,
`85 Stat. 391 ............................................................. 36
`Act of Nov. 24, 1971, Pub. L. No. 92-170,
`85 Stat. 490 ............................................................. 37
`Act of Oct. 25, 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-566,
`86 Stat. 1181 ............................................................ 37
`Act of Dec. 31, 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-573,
`88 Stat. 1873 ........................................................... 37
`An Act for the Relief of William Gale, ch. 131,
`6 Stat. 895 (Mar. 3, 1843) ....................................... 40
`An Act for the Relief of Levi H. Corson, ch. 57,
`9 Stat. 763 (Feb. 19, 1849) ...................................... 40
`An Act for the Relief of Mistress Henry R.
`Schoolcraft, ch. 16, 11 Stat. 557 (Jan. 25,
`1859) ........................................................................ 40
`An Act for the Relief of John Goulding, ch. 88,
`12 Stat. 904 (May 30, 1862) .................................... 41
`An Act for the Relief of Mrs. William L. Herndon,
`ch. 99, 14 Stat. 587 (May 24, 1866) ........................ 40
`An Act for the Relief of William Tod Helmuth,
`ch. 543, 18 Stat. 618 (June 23, 1874) ..................... 40
`
`
`
`xi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`An Act for the Relief of the Heirs of William
`Graham, ch. 187, 20 Stat. 542 (June 11,
`1878) ........................................................................ 41
`An Act for the Relief of Judson Jones, ch. 29,
`30 Stat. 396 (Feb. 17, 1898) .................................... 40
`An Act to Renew the Patent of Thomas
`Blanchard, ch. 213, 6 Stat. 589 (June 30,
`1834) ........................................................................ 40
`Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988,
`Pub. L. No. 100-568, 102 Stat. 2853 ............... passim
`Copyright Act of 1790, ch. 15, 1 Stat. 124 ..... 3, 4, 29, 33
`Copyright Act of 1909, Pub. L. No. 60-349,
`35 Stat. 1075 ................................................. 4, 35, 36
`Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90
`Stat. 2541 ............................................................ 4, 36
`North American Free Trade Agreement Imple-
`mentation Act of December 8, 1993, Pub. L.
`No. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 ...................................... 9
`Statute of Anne, 1710, 8 Ann., c.19 (Eng.) ........... 26, 28
`Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Pub. L. No.
`103-465, 108 Stat. 4809 (1994) ....................... 8, 9, 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws
`of England (Robert Malcolm Kerr ed., 4th ed.
`1876) ........................................................................ 28
`Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary
`and Artistic Works, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-27,
`1161 U.N.T.S. 3 ............................................... passim
`The Berne Convention: Hearings on S. 1301
`and S. 1971 Before the Subcomm. on Patents,
`Copyrights and Trademarks of the S. Comm.
`on the Judiciary, 100th Cong. 150 (1988) .......... 6, 39
`Michael D. Birnhack, The Idea of Progress in
`Copyright Law, 1 BUFF. INTEL. PROP. L.J. 3
`(2001) ....................................................................... 29
`Curtis Bradley & Jack Goldsmith, Treaties,
`Human Rights, and Conditional Consent,
`149 U. PA. L. REV. 399 (2000) ................................. 55
`Extending the Duration of Copyright Protection
`in Certain Cases, Hearings on H.J. Res. 627
`Before Subcomm. No. 3 of the H. Comm. on
`the Judiciary, 87th Cong. 4 (1962) ......................... 37
`The Federalist (Paul Leicester Ford ed., 1898) ......... 31
`Final Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on
`U.S. Adherence to the Berne Convention, re-
`printed in 10 COLUM.-VLA J.L. & ARTS 513
`(1986) ............................................................. 6, 38, 39
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`Louis Adams Frothingham, A Brief History of
`the Constitution and Government of Massa-
`chusetts (1925) ......................................................... 29
`The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating
`History (1986-1992) (Terence P. Stewart ed.,
`1999) ........................................................................ 55
`General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT):
`Intellectual Property Provisions: Joint Hear-
`ing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual
`Property and Judicial Administration of the
`H. Comm. on the Judiciary and the Sub-
`comm. on Patents, Copyrights, and Trade-
`marks of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary on
`H.R. 4894 and S. 2368, 103d Cong. 136-37
`(1994) ............................................................... passim
`Paul Goldstein & Bernt Hugenholtz, Interna-
`tional Copyright (2010) ............................... 56, 59, 61
`H.R. REP. NO. 59-7083 (1907) ..................................... 38
`H.R. REP. NO. 87-1742 (1962) ..................................... 37
`H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476 (1976) ..................................... 38
`H.R. REP. NO. 100-609 (1988) ............................. passim
`H.R. REP. NO. 103-826 (1994) ..................................... 10
`The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Julian P. Boyd
`ed., 1954) ................................................................. 29
`Samuel Johnson, Dictionary of the English
`Language (7th ed. 1785) ......................................... 21
`Samuel Johnson, Dictionary of the English
`Language (4th ed. 1775) ......................................... 21
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`The Writings of James Madison (Gaillard Hunt
`ed., 1910) ................................................................. 29
`Claude Masouyé, Guide to the Berne Conven-
`tion for the Protection of Literary and Artistic
`Works (Paris Act, 1971) (WIPO ed., 1978) .............. 56
`M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright (1984) ............. 6, 38
`M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copy-
`right (2010) .................................................... 5, 40, 60
`Tyler T. Ochoa & Mark Rose, The Anti Monop-
`oly Origins of the Patent & Copyright Clause,
`49 J. COPYRIGHT SOC’Y U.S.A. 675 (2002) ......... 26, 27
`Ralph Oman, Berne Revision: The Continuing
`Drama, 4 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA &
`ENT. L.J. 139 (1993) ................................................ 55
`William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright (2008) ....... 38, 39
`Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical
`Perspective (1968) ........................................ 26, 27, 32
`Marybeth Peters, The Year in Review: Accom-
`plishments and Objectives of the U.S. Copy-
`right Office, 7 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA
`& ENT. L.J. 25 (1996) .............................................. 10
`William Hyde Price, The English Patents of
`Monopoly (Harvard Univ. Press 1913) (1906) ........ 28
`William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of
`the United States of America (1825) ....................... 32
`Sam Ricketson, The Berne Convention for the
`Protection of Literary and Artistic Works:
`1886-1986 (1987) ..................................................... 55
`
`
`
`xv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`S. REP. NO. 103-412 (1994) ......................................... 10
`William St. Clair, The Reading Nation in the
`Romantic Period (2004) .................................... 26, 27
`Arthur H. Seidel, The Constitution and a Stan-
`dard of Patentability, 48 J. PAT. OFF. SOC’Y 5
`(1966) ....................................................................... 21
`Thorvald Solberg, Copyright in Congress, 1789-
`1904 (1905) ........................................................ 29, 30
`Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitu-
`tion of the United States (4th ed. 1873) .................. 31
`Symposium, The Constitutionality of Copyright
`Term Extension: How Long Is Too Long?, 18
`CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 651 (2000) .................... 45
`Edward C. Walterscheid, The Nature of the
`Intellectual Property Clause: A Study in His-
`torical Perspective (2002) ........................................ 25
`Webster’s American Dictionary of the English
`Language (1828) ...................................................... 21
`U.S. Adherence to Berne Convention: Hearings
`Before the Subcomm. on Patents, Copyrights
`and Trademarks of the S. Comm. on the Ju-
`diciary, 99th Cong. 662 (May 16, 1985 and
`Apr. 15, 1986) .......................................................... 58
`
`
`
`1
`
`BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
`Petitioners respectfully request that this Court
`
`reverse the judgment of the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
`
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The district court’s initial decision dismissing
`
`petitioners’ claims (Pet. App. 10-52) is unreported and
`available at 2005 WL 914754. The court of appeals’
`initial decision affirming in part and reversing in part
`(Pet. App. 70-109) is reported at 501 F.3d 1179. The
`district court’s decision on remand granting summary
`judgment to petitioners on First Amendment grounds
`(Pet. App. 43-69) is reported at 611 F. Supp. 2d 1165.
`The decision of the court of appeals reversing (Pet.
`App. 1-42) is reported at 609 F.3d 1076.
`
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`JURISDICTION
`The judgment of the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was issued on June 21,
`2010. Petitioners obtained an extension of time
`within which to file a petition for writ of certiorari to
`October 20, 2010, and filed a timely petition on that
`date. This Court granted certiorari on March 7, 2011,
`131 S. Ct. 1600 (2011), and has jurisdiction pursuant
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
`
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`
`
`2
`
`RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL
`AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
`The Copyright Clause gives Congress the power
`
`to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
`by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inven-
`tors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
`and Discoveries.” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
`
`The First Amendment provides, in pertinent
`
`part, that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging
`the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend I.
`
`The pertinent provisions of the Copyright Act, 17
`
`U.S.C. §§ 104A, 109(a) (codifying Sec. 514 of Uruguay
`Round Agreements Act (URAA)), are reprinted in the
`petition appendix at 173-90.
`
`--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`In 1994, Congress did something unique in the
`
`history of American copyright law. After expressing
`doubts about its constitutional authority to do so,
`Congress granted copyright protection to a large body
`of foreign works that the Copyright Act had placed in
`the public domain, where most had remained for
`decades. As a result, petitioners lost important speech
`and expression rights central to their professions, as
`well as the expected return on significant invest-
`ments. The Tenth Circuit held the statute was within
`Congress’s powers under Article I of the Constitution
`and did not violate the First Amendment.
`
`
`
`3
`
`1. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress
`
`the power to grant authors copyrights, but only for
`“limited [t]imes,” and only to “promote the [p]rogress”
`of knowledge and learning. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl.
`8. The careful balance it strikes reflects the fact that
`providing exclusive rights encourages the creation of
`new works, but also inhibits the progress of knowl-
`edge and learning by restricting access to existing
`works. Congress may therefore set a limited time of
`protection, but once the selected period expires, the
`work enters the public domain. At that point, every
`American is free to use the work without restriction,
`spread its contents, and use it in the creation of still
`other works.
`
`For two hundred years, copyright legislation was
`
`consistent with a simple command: what enters the
`public domain remains in the public domain. In the
`first Copyright Act of 1790, Congress created the
`public domain of the United States by replacing a
`patchwork of state law protection with a uniform
`federal system that placed works in the public do-
`main quickly and reliably. See Copyright Act of 1790,
`ch. 15, § 1, 1 Stat. 124 (“1790 Act”). Under the 1790
`Act, works by foreign authors entered the pub-
`lic domain immediately. See id. § 5, 1 Stat. at 125.
`U.S. “authors of any map, chart, book or books”
`were eligible for an initial term of fourteen years
`upon compliance with certain formalities such as
`registration, public notice and deposit. Id. §§ 1, 3, 4,
`1 Stat. at 124-25. An additional term of fourteen
`years was available upon compliance with additional
`
`
`
`4
`
`formalities. See id. § 1, 1 Stat. at 124. Many of these
`formalities were retained until 1976, and some until
`1988. As a result, the public domain grew based on a
`combination of term limitations and eligibility re-
`quirements.
`
`From 1790 to 1994, Congress exercised its power
`
`to expand the duration and scope of copyright protec-
`tion no fewer than nineteen times. On each occasion,
`it left the public domain completely intact. See, e.g.,
`Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-553, § 103, 90
`Stat. 2541, 2599 (“This Act does not provide copyright
`protection for any work that goes into the public
`domain before January 1, 1978.”); Copyright Act of
`1909, Pub. L. No. 60-349, § 7, 35 Stat. 1075, 1077 (“no
`copyright shall subsist in the original text of any
`work which is in the public domain”).
`
`This time-honored tradition of preserving and
`
`expanding the public domain makes the products of
`learning, knowledge and creativity widely available
`and free to all for any purpose. It also helps expand
`that body of knowledge by providing the building
`blocks of future creativity in music, art, entertain-
`ment and literature. The public domain promotes the
`diffusion of knowledge, and provides the raw material
`to expand it.
`
`2. Congress recognized this tradition and fol-
`
`lowed it in 1988 when it joined the Berne Convention
`for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
`(“Berne Convention”). S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-27, 1161
`U.N.T.S. 3 (last revised on July 24, 1971). The Berne
`
`
`
`5
`
`Convention was first signed in 1886, but the United
`States declined to join for more than one hundred
`years. Instead, the United States secured widespread
`foreign protection for U.S. authors through the Uni-
`versal Copyright Convention (“UCC”) and bilateral
`copyright agreements. See 4 M. Nimmer & D.
`Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 17.01[B][2] (2010).
`
`The Berne Convention sets minimum standards
`
`of copyright protection, and provides authors with
`automatic protection in each member nation. See
`Berne Conv. Arts. 2-19. It prohibits members from
`conditioning protection on compliance with formali-
`ties. See id. Art. 5(2). The Convention also contains a
`provision that requires members to grant copyright
`protection to works that “have not yet fallen into the
`public domain in the country of origin [i.e., generally
`where the work was first published] through the
`expiry of the term of protection.” Id. Art. 18(1). But it
`empowers every member to modify this requirement
`through “special conventions” and to otherwise “de-
`termine, each in so far as it is concerned, the condi-
`tions of application of this principle.” Id. Art. 18(3).
`
`As Congress considered joining the Berne Con-
`
`vention, a major subject of its deliberations was
`whether Berne required the United States to grant
`protection to any foreign works in the public domain
`of the United States, and whether the Constitution
`permitted Congress to do so. See H.R. REP. NO. 100-
`609, at 51-52 (1988). The leading copyright treatise
`at the time stated “neither the copyright clause nor
`the First Amendment would permit the granting of
`
`
`
`6
`
`copyright to works which have theretofore entered
`the public domain.” 1 M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copy-
`right, § 105[A] (1984). In addition, Members of Con-
`gress, the Register of Copyrights, an ad hoc working
`group of experts convened by the State Department,
`and other commentators believed that providing
`retroactive protection would raise serious constitu-
`tional concerns. See H.R. REP. NO. 100-609, at 51
`(1988); The Berne Convention: Hearings on S. 1301
`and S. 1971 Before the Subcomm. on Patents, Copy-
`rights and Trademarks of the S. Comm. on the Judi-
`ciary, 100th Cong. 150 (1988) (statement of Ralph
`Oman, Register of Copyrights and Assistant Librar-
`ian for Copyright Services); Final Report of the Ad
`Hoc Working Group on U.S. Adherence to the Berne
`Convention, reprinted in 10 COLUM.-VLA J.L. & ARTS
`513, 590-91 & nn.15-16 (1986).
`
`After extensive consideration, Congress decided
`
`the United States would join the Convention, but
`would not grant any protection to works in its public
`domain. Congress adopted
`the Berne Conven-
`tion Implementation Act (“BCIA”), which changed
`U.S. copyright law by easing restrictions on foreign
`authorship and aligning U.S. law with Berne’s mini-
`mum standards. See Berne Convention Implementa-
`tion Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-568, 102 Stat. 2853.
`The BCIA did not remove any works from the public
`domain of the United States. See BCIA § 12 (“Title 17,
`United States Code, as amended by this Act, does not
`provide copyright protection for any work that is in
`the public domain in the United States.”). Congress
`
`
`
`7
`
`determined the BCIA satisfied U.S. obligations under
`Berne based on the express terms of Article 18 and
`the specific discretion it provides. See H.R. REP. NO.
`100-609, at 51-52; BCIA § 2(3) (BCIA “satisf[ies] the
`obligations of the United States in adhering to the
`Berne Convention”).
`
`After the United States joined Berne in 1988,
`
`new works by U.S. authors received full protection in
`every member nation. See, e.g., Berne Conv. Art. 2(6);
`BCIA § 2(3). As a result of Congress’s decision not to
`provide retroactive protection to public domain
`works, some nations such as Thailand and Russia
`refused to grant protection for some existing U.S.
`works that were in the public domains of those na-
`tions. See, e.g., General Agreement on Tariffs and
`Trade (GATT): Intellectual Property Provisions: Joint
`Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Property
`and Judicial Administration of the H. Comm. on the
`Judiciary and the Subcomm. on Patents, Copyrights,
`and Trademarks of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary on
`H.R. 4894 and S. 2368, 103d Cong. 136-37 (1994)
`(“Joint House and Senate Comm. Hearings on the
`URAA”) (statement of Ira S. Shapiro, General Coun-
`sel, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative).
`
`A variety of copyright owners urged Congress to
`
`reconsider the question of granting copyright protec-
`tion to foreign works in the public domain of the
`United States. See id. 244 (statement of Eric H.
`Smith, Executive Director and General Counsel, In-
`ternational Intellectual Property Alliance), 256 (state-
`ment of Jack Valenti, President and Chief Executive
`
`
`
`8
`
`Officer, Motion Picture Association of America), and
`291 (statement of Jason S. Berman, Chairman and
`Chief Executive Officer, Recording Industry Associa-
`tion of America). They expressed the hope that if the
`United States granted such protection to foreign
`works, foreign nations would reciprocate by granting
`protection to certain U.S. works in their public do-
`mains. See id.
`
`3. In 1994, Congress reversed course and en-
`
`acted Section 514 of the URAA in connection with
`implementing the Uruguay Round of negotiations on
`the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),
`and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
`Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). See Pub. L. No.
`103-465, § 514, 108 Stat. 4809, 4976 (1994) (amend-
`ing 17 U.S.C. §§ 104A & 109), Pet. App. 173-90.
`
`Section 514 grants automatic protection to a
`
`large body of existing foreign works that were in the
`public domain of the United States (many for dec-
`ades) and sets the term as “the remainder of the term
`of copyright that the work would otherwise have been
`granted in the United States if the work never en-
`tered the public domain in the United States.” 17
`U.S.C. § 104A(a)(1), (h)(6), Pet. App. 173, 183-84.
`Section 514 also places substantial restrictions on the
`“first sale” doctrine by restricting the right to sell, or
`otherwise distribute, copies of restored works that
`were lawfully made when the work was in the public
`
`
`
`9
`
`domain. See 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) & (b)(1)(A), Pet. App.
`186-87.1
`
`Section 514 provides one year of temporary
`
`protection for “reliance parties” who invested in using
`the newly-restored work