¹û¶³´«Ã½app¹Ù·½

Legal Principle at Issue

Can Congress remove works from the public domain by restoring their copyright? Does this violate the First Amendment?

Action

In a 6–2 decision (Justice Kagan did not participate), the Supreme Court upheld the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994, ruling against Golan. In the majority opinion, Justice Ginsburg wrote Congress has the authority under the Copyright Clause to implement international treaties (in this case, the Berne Convention) that require the protection of foreign works, and that the Copyright Clause does not explicitly prohibit removing works from the public domain. Moreover, the Court ruled the First Amendment wasn’t violated because copyright law already balances the public's interest in free expression with authors' rights through doctrines like fair use and idea/expression dichotomy.

In their dissent, Justices Breyer and Alito argued that removing works from the public domain significantly disrupts expectations and access, harming the public, and concluded the URAA expanded copyright protections without clear benefit to the creation of new works, which was a key reason for including the Copyright Clause in the Constitution.

Facts/Syllabus

The U.S. government passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act in 1994, which restored U.S. copyright protection to certain foreign works that had previously been in the public domain in the United States. Lawrence Golan, a music conductor and professor, along with others, sued the government, arguing that restoring copyright to works previously in the public domain violated the Copyright Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the Constitution and the First Amendment because it restricted their right to perform and share those works.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado held that the act does not violate the Copyright Clause and rejected Golan's First Amendment challenge, concluding there's "no need to expand upon the settled rule that private censorship via copyright enforcement does not implicate First Amendment concerns." Golan appealed, and the 10th Circuit affirmed the URAA does not violate the Copyright Clause but also vacated the district court's First Amendment ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Importance of Case

The ruling affirmed that Congress can remove works from the public domain, at least in the context of implementing international agreements. It also solidified the idea that copyright law has built-in safeguards for free speech, so it generally doesn’t violate the First Amendment.