Term: 2011
Docket: 10-545
Lawrence Golan, Et Al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Et Al.
- Pro
10-545 GOLAN V. HOLDER DECISION BELOW: 609 F.3d 1076 JUSTICE KAGAN TOOK NO PART CERT. GRANTED 3/7/2011 QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (Section 514) did something unique in the history of American intellectual property law: It "restored" copyright protection in thousands of works that the Copyright Act had placed in the Public Domain, where they remained for years as the common property of all Americans. The Petitioners in this case are orchestra conductors, educators, performers, film archivists and motion picture distributors, who relied for years on the free availability of these works in the Public Domain, which they performed, adapted, restored and distributed without restriction. The enactment of Section 514 therefore had a dramatic effect on Petitioners' free speech and expression rights, as well as their economic interests. Section 514 eliminated Petitioners' right to perform, share and build upon works they had once been able to use freely. The questions presented are: 1. Does the Progress Clause of the United States Constitution prohibit Congress from taking works out of the Public Domain? 2. Does Section 514 violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-1234, 09-1261
The U.S. Supreme Court case of Lawrence Golan v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., in 2011 revolved around the issue of copyright restoration for foreign works that were previously in the public domain within the United States. The petitioners, including orchestra conductors and educators who relied on free access to these works, argued against a provision of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) that restored copyrights to certain foreign works under specific conditions as it violated their First Amendment rights by restricting their freedom of expression and was not necessary for promoting arts and sciences as intended by Copyright Clause. However, after reviewing international copyright law principles and practices along with constitutional provisions regarding Congress's power over copyrights, the court ruled in favor of Attorney General Holder upholding URAA’s constitutionality. The majority opinion held that while such laws might restrict some speech opportunities they also can create new ones; furthermore Congress has broad discretion when balancing competing interests related to intellectual property rights.
In the dissenting opinion for Lawrence Golan v. Eric H. Holder Jr., Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Alito, argued that the Copyright Clause of the Constitution does not permit Congress to remove works from the public domain and grant them copyright protection once again. They contended that this goes against historical practice and understanding of copyright law in America which has always viewed "the public domain" as inviolable - a realm where free use is not an exception but rather a rule. The majority's interpretation would allow Congress to continually extend copyright protections, effectively creating perpetual copyrights which are expressly forbidden by the Copyright Clause itself. Furthermore, they pointed out that such actions could potentially violate First Amendment rights by restricting access to previously freely available works.
