Golan v. Holder
| Golan v. Holder | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 5, 2011 Decided January 18, 2012 |
|
| Full case name | Lawrence Golan, et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al. |
| Docket nos. | 10-545 |
| Citations | 565 U.S. ___ (more)
132 S.Ct. 873
|
| Prior history | On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit |
| Holding | |
| "Limited time" language of Copyright Clause does not preclude the extension of copyright protections to works previously in the public domain. Tenth Circuit affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Sotomayor |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Alito |
| Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Copyright Clause | |
Golan v. Holder,565 U.S. ___ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case, originally filed on September 19, 2001, challenging the constitutionality of the application of Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, a treaty seeking to equalize copyright protection on an international basis. In the United States, the Act restored copyright status to foreign works previously in the public domain. The two main arguments against the application of the Act in the case were that restoring copyright violates the "limited time" language of the United States Constitution's Copyright Clause, and that restoring to copyright works that had passed into the public domain interferes with the peoples' First Amendment right to use, copy and otherwise exploit the works and to freely express themselves through these works, thus also violating the Constitution's Copyright Clause.
The US Supreme Court held on January 18, 2012 that Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act does not exceed Congress's authority under the Copyright Clause, and the court affirmed the judgment of the lower court by 6-2, with the opinion written by Justice Ginsburg. The practical effect of the decision is to confirm that works that were previously free to use, such as Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf, are no longer in the public domain and are subject to use only with the permission of the copyright holder, such as through paid licensing, until their copyright term expires again.
After the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the plaintiffs' challenge to that act in 2004 (Golan v. Ashcroft). The remaining constitutional challenge to the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act was dismissed the following year (Golan v. Gonzales).
...
Wikipedia