throbber
No. 10-545
`================================================================
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket