A Supreme Court Without RBG May Impact Hollywood's Grip on Intellectual Property; Billboard, September 21, 2020

Eriq Gardner, Billboard; A Supreme Court Without RBG May Impact Hollywood's Grip on Intellectual Property

 

[Kip Currier: This is a note I posted for my Intellectual Property and Open Movements course I'm teaching this term...

Timely and fascinating article regarding the recent passing of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her "copyright hawk" impact on many landmark Intellectual Property cases, like some we have already examined this term, e.g. Golan v. Holder (public domain) and Eldred v. Ashcroft (20 year extension of U.S. copyright protection period to Life of the Author plus 70 years.) In noting Ginsburg's judicial philosophy that tended to favor copyright maximalism, while a staunch civil rights defender and advocate for the equal rights of marginalized persons to the end, this article reminds us that people are often much more complex and less easily-defined than the boundaried labels that are often ascribed to them. And Justices are no different in that regard.]

 

 "Ginsburg gravitated to intellectual property disputes almost from the moment the Brooklyn, NY-born attorney was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton in 1993. More often than not, when a big ruling on the subject was on the table, it was she who carried the big pen. Notably, in 2003, Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft that blessed an extension of the copyright term over a free speech challenge. Almost a decade later, she reached a similar conclusion in Golan v. Holder, which dealt with works taken from the public domain to comply with an international treaty. Ginsburg also shaped who could sue for copyright infringement — and when — with her majority opinions in Petrella v. MGM (2013) and Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (2019). She also wrote a concurring opinion in MGM Studios v. Grokster, the case which apportioned secondary copyright liability in the file-sharing age.

Ginsburg was certainly hawkish when it came to copyright. And her view can be most sharply contrasted with those of Justice Stephen Breyer, demonstrating that there's more to judicial philosophy than a conservative-liberal divide...

Now comes Google v. Oracle, which has been hailed for good reason as the "copyright case of the century." It concerns Oracle's efforts to punish Google for allegedly infringing computer code to build the Android operating system. At issue in the case is the scope of copyright. Does the structure, sequence, and organization of application programming interfaces get protected? And separately, does Google have fair use to whatever is copyrighted? The movie industry is backing Oracle in the case —and the high court's conclusions will surely have an outsized influence both on the development of technology as well as how future copyright cases get adjudicated. Ginsburg's passing is probably bad news for Oracle's chances here. Of all the justices, she was least likely to read limits to copyright protection."

Supreme Court Upholds Law That Pulled Foreign Works Back Under Copyright; Chronicle of Higher Education, 1/18/12

Jeffrey R. Young, Chronicle of Higher Education; Supreme Court Upholds Law That Pulled Foreign Works Back Under Copyright:

"A professor lost his long legal fight to keep thousands of foreign musical scores, books, and other copyrighted works in the public domain when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against him on Wednesday in a case that will affect scholars and artists around the country.

The scholar is Lawrence Golan, a music professor and conductor at the University of Denver. He argued that the U.S. Congress did not have the legal authority to remove works from the public domain. It did so in 1994, when the Congress changed U.S. copyright law to conform with an international copyright agreement. The new law reapplied copyright to millions of works that had long been free for anyone to use without permission.

The Supreme Court heard the case, Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545, last October, and in a 6-to-2 ruling on Wednesday, the justices upheld the changes in U.S. copyright law."

US Supreme Court Rules On Golan v. Holder, Key Public Domain Case; Intellectual Property Watch, 1/18/12

William New, Intellectual Property Watch; US Supreme Court Rules On Golan v. Holder, Key Public Domain Case:

"The United States Supreme Court today ruled on one of the top intellectual property legal cases expected this year. The case questioned whether the US Congress acted constitutionally when it restored copyright to millions of foreign works that had been in the public domain in the US. And it affirmed Congress’ actions, allowing the US to avoid questions of compliance with its international obligations.
The 18 January decision is here [pdf]. The justices ruled 6 to 2 in favour."

[Op-Ed] The Public Domain; New York Times, 10/11/11

[Op-Ed] New York Times; The Public Domain:

"Copyright gives writers and others the incentive to create by giving them exclusive right to their work. But Congress’s power to grant copyright is limited in time and scope so that works can move into the public domain, where they become an essential part of our culture. The government must find other ways to comply with the trade treaty without curbing free expression."

Copyright Law Challenged; Wall Street Journal, 10/6/11

Jess Bravin, Wall Street Journal; Copyright Law Challenged:

"The potential stakes are huge, and again pit old industry against new...

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, defending the law, said it brought the U.S. into a convention that can protect American intellectual property abroad and amounted to "the price of admission to the international system."

Several justices, however, doubted that taking books and music by long-dead authors out of the public domain could promote the "progress" the Constitution sought to spur through copyright.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who dissented from the 2003 domestic-copyright case, said the government's position could undermine scholarship and preservation if researchers end up being forced to hire lawyers to track down owners or risk ignoring the law.

He cited the example of a group that seeks to preserve and publish Jewish music from the early 20th century but because the Nazis destroyed Eastern Europe's Jewish communities cannot identify the copyright owners."

In Supreme Court Argument, a Rock Legend Plays a Role; New York Times, 10/5/11

Adam Liptak, New York Times; In Supreme Court Argument, a Rock Legend Plays a Role:

"Jimi Hendrix made an appearance at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in an argument over whether Congress acted constitutionally in 1994 by restoring copyright protection to foreign works that had once been in the public domain. The affected works included films by Alfred Hitchcock and Federico Fellini, books by C. S. Lewis and Virginia Woolf, symphonies by Prokofiev and Stravinsky and paintings by Picasso.

The suit challenging the law was brought by orchestra conductors, teachers and film archivists who say they had relied for years on the free availability of such works."

[Op Ed] Will Copyright Stifle Hollywood?; New York Times, 10/4/11

[Op Ed] David Decherney, New York Times; Will Copyright Stifle Hollywood? :

"The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments today in Golan v. Holder, a case challenging the copyright provision of the 1994 act. There are many reasons the justices should conclude that Congress went too far in altering the copyright system."

On the Docket; New York Times, 10/1/11

New York Times; On the Docket:

"The Supreme Court, which returns to the bench on Monday, has so far agreed to hear about 50 cases, including ones on criminal and copyright law, the First Amendment and foreign affairs...

Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545

LOWER COURT DECISION The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, upheld a federal law that provided copyright protection to works that had entered the public domain, rejecting a challenge from orchestra conductors, teachers and film archivists now unable to use what had once been freely available materials.

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the First Amendment and the Constitution’s copyright clause prohibit Congress from taking works out of the public domain."

Supreme Court Takes Up Scholars' Rights; Chronicle of Higher Education, 5/29/11

Marc Parry, Chronicle of Higher Education; Supreme Court Takes Up Scholars' Rights:

"The conductor's fight centers on the concept of the public domain, which scholars depend on for teaching and research. When a work enters the public domain, anyone can quote from it, copy it, share it, or republish it without seeking permission or paying royalties.

The dispute that led to Golan v. Holder dates to 1994, when Congress passed a law that moved vast amounts of material from the public domain back behind the firewall of copyright protection. For conductors like Mr. Golan, that step limited access to canonical 20th-century Russian pieces that had been freely played for years."

Next chapter in recopyright law: Supreme Court; Denver Post, 3/8/11

John Ingold, Denver Post; Next chapter in recopyright law: Supreme Court:

"Although the case involves an obscure subject, it raises important constitutional issues, said Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Stanford University law school's Fair Use Project and another attorney on the case. Copyright, the plaintiffs argue, is like the spike strips in a car-rental parking lot: Once a work crosses over into the public domain, it can't back up...

The government, though, argues the recopyrighting law is necessary to comply with an international treaty, which in turn protects the copyrights of American works in foreign countries."

Library Rights Are at Stake in New Supreme Court Copyright Case; Chronicle of Higher Education, 3/8/11

Marc Parry, Chronicle of Higher Education; Library Rights Are at Stake in New Supreme Court Copyright Case:

"Does Congress have the right to restore copyright protection to foreign works that have fallen into the public domain?

That issue is at the heart of a major copyright case that the Supreme Court agreed to hear yesterday. Its resolution could have implications for libraries’ ability to share works online, advocates say."