Maintained
by:
Dennis
S. Karjala
Professor
of Law
Arizona
State University |
|
| Help
Protect Your Rights to the Great Works in the Public Domain! |
| On
October 7, 1998, both the House and the Senate passed S. 505, the "Sonny
Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" (CTEA), extending the already-too-long
term of copyright protection by another 20 years. The legislation purports
to cover even works already in existence -- a windfall gift to special
interests of what rightfully belongs to the public. President Bill Clinton,
a self-proclaimed supporter of the little guy, signed the bill on October
27, 1998. Like the Congress, former President Clinton sold out the
interests of the American people to a few owners of valuable copyrights
from the 1920's and 1930's. On January 15, 2003, the United States
Supreme Court essentially disavowed its institutional obligation to interpret
the Constitution to maintain the system of checks and balances set up by the
Founding Fathers. This web site shows how and why
the congressional action and the Supreme Court's affirmance of it are tragic
mistakes.
This site also contains materials on the law and policy of longer copyright terms generally in the hope that, when this issue
arises again (as it will, now that the Supreme Court has given Congress a carte
blanche with respect to copyright, around the year 2015 or so), those seeking to defend the
public interest will have some ammunition.
Everyone should be grateful
to the efforts of Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig, who was the lynchpin
in the constitutional challenge, supplying immeasurable amounts of his time,
money, and extraordinary talent to the cause. Although the effort was
ultimately unsuccessful, he succeeded in bringing the issue before the public,
which I was wholly unable to do when the bill was being considered by
Congress. If we are vigilant, we MAY able to stop
the rent-seeking special interests the next time they seek to line their own
pockets at the expense of our cultural development. Please visit Professor
Lessig's web site for information and ideas about new approaches to
promote the public domain in the light of this disastrous abdication of
constitutional duty by the Supreme Court.
|
| |
|
|
|
Challenge
to Constitutionality |
|
Contains links to judicial materials and briefs filed in connection with the
unsuccessful constitutional challenge to the CTEA.
|
Media
Coverage |
|
Articles
and Editorials from the Popular Media concerning the CTEA and the legal
challenge to its constitutionality
|
Commentary |
|
Academic
Articles, Comments and Opinions on Term Extension and the CTEA
|
Statutes
and Treaties |
|
Texts
of the Relevant Legal Provisions of the Copyright Act and Berne Convention
Do you
think the Sonny Bono Act harmonized US copyright terms with those in the
European Union? Take a look that this Harmonization
Chart, prepared May 15, 2002
The
Stanford University Libraries
site is a good one for constitutional, legislative, and administrative materials
related to copyright, including the important fair use cases. (Thanks to
Jill at Melody Lane for
telling me about this.)
|
Legislative
Materials |
|
What
Was Congress Hearing and Thinking? Introductory statements by sponsors, my
opposition statements (and others), the bills themselves at various stages, and
committee reports.
|
| |
| New
Developments and New Items at this Site
|
|
Supreme
Court Lands Final Blow Against the Public Domain! In
Golan v. Holder
(Jan. 18, 2012), the Court upheld the power of Congress to withdraw
works from the U.S. public domain, at least where that action appears
required by international treaty (Berne Convention) and the statute is
narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of compliance. Professor
Christopher Sprigman has written a short and
critical commentary on the case.
What do we do
now if Congress adopts a term of, say, life + 1000 years, or seeks to award
a new copyright in Huckleberry Finn to Disney or to the Mark Twain
estate? The only argument is to address the congressional action on
the merits, convince the Court that something more than "rational basis"
review is required when the Constitution (i.e., "limited times") is being
interpreted, and require Congress to present a plausible or at least
colorable argument that the action will indeed "promote the progress of
science." See
Judicial
Oversight of Copyright Legislation, cited below.
Register of Copyrights
Maria Pallente suggests going back to a life + 50 year term, with an opt-in
for an additional 20 years. Joe Mullin,
Head of US Copyright Office wants to shorten terms, just barely, Ars
Technica, March 19, 2013.
|
|
Recent
Commentary
Joseph
D. Mirarchi, Note,
The Big Effect
of Two Little Words: Why a "Limited Times" Challenge Will Stop the Next
Copyright Term Extension, 43 Rutgers L.J. 131 (2012)(arguing that
the next term extension should be challenged on the ground that the "limited
time" term can be granted only to "authors" and that another extension would
effectively be a new grant to the heirs of authors, exceeding congressional
power under the intellectual property clause.
See also
Judicial
Oversight of Copyright Legislation, 35 U. N. Ky. L. Rev. 253 (2008): Dennis Karjala seeks to refute arguments, based on the need to leave
complicated legislative copyright tradeoffs to Congress, that the Supreme
Court got to the right result in Eldred. While the argument is
correct in general, it is incorrect in the specific cases of copyright term
extension, because of the constitutional requirement that copyright be
afforded for a "limited time."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Last Update
March 20, 2013
|
|
|
|