Golan v. Holder

Background

Petitioners are orchestra conductors, musicians, publishers, and others who had relied on free access to foreign works that Congress placed back under copyright by §514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Section 514 restored U.S. copyright to certain works from Berne member countries that lacked U.S. protection because the United States earlier did not protect authors from those countries, because older U.S. formalities were not complied with, or because U.S. law earlier excluded some pre-1972 sound recordings. Congress added special rules to ease the change for people who had used those works before restoration.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether Congress had power under the Copyright Clause and whether restoration violated the First Amendment. Relying on Eldred and on historical congressional practice, the majority held that the Constitution does not forbid Congress from giving protection to works previously unprotected and that the restored terms are still “limited.” The Court pointed to past statutes and private bills that similarly altered protection for existing works. On free-speech grounds, the Court explained that copyright’s longstanding safeguards—the idea/expression distinction and the fair use defense—together with statutory accommodations for reliance parties, meant no heightened First Amendment review was required. The Tenth Circuit’s judgment upholding §514 was affirmed.

Real world impact

Because §514 stands, many foreign works once freely available in the United States may now be copyrighted here. Users who perform, publish, copy, digitize, or distribute those works may need permission or licenses. Section 514’s notice rules, grace period, and special compensation rules for preexisting derivative uses reduce some immediate disruption, but institutions such as orchestras, libraries, museums, and educators may face higher costs and administrative burdens. Any broader changes would require Congress to act.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Alito, dissented. He argued that the Copyright Clause centers on encouraging new creation and that removing works from the public domain without offering new creative incentives wrongfully restricts dissemination and imposes heavy administrative and cultural costs, especially for orphan works.