|
''Golan v. Holder'',〔(Golan v. Holder ), 10-545, US Supreme Court, Term OY-2011, January 18, 2012. The full title of the case was ''Lawrence Golan, Richard Kapp, S.A. Publishing Co., Ind., d/b/a/ ESS.A.Y. Recordings, Symphony of the Canyons, Ron Hall d/b/a/ Festival Films, and John McDonough, d/b/a/ Timeless Video Alternatives International v. Alberto Gonzales, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, and Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office of the United States.'' The case was originally ''Golan v. Ashcroft'', because John Ashcroft was the Attorney General at the time it was originally filed, and was recaptioned ''Golan v. Gonzalez'' when Gonzalez assumed the office. The case's title later became ''Golan v. Holder'' when it was reconsidered, to reflect that the office was occupied by Eric Holder.〕 565 U.S. ___ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case, originally filed on September 19, 2001,〔(Golan v. Ashcroft Complaint ) 2001-9-29. Accessed 2012-7-17.〕 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.〔Denniston, Lyle, (2011-10-04) ("Argument preview: Copyright and the public domain" ), Bloomberg Law, SCOTUSblog〕 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.〔Totenberg, Nina, (High Court Sides With Man Abandoned By Attorneys ), 'Separate Decision Upholds Copyright Law', NPR, 2012-1-18.〕 ==History== 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'').〔(''Golan v. Ashcroft'' ), 310 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (D. Colo. 2004).〕 The remaining constitutional challenge to the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act was dismissed the following year (''Golan v. Gonzales'').〔''Golan v. Gonzales'', No. 01-B-1854, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6800 (D. Colo April 20, 2005).〕 The case affected the copyright status of potentially millions of works, including: *''Metropolis'' (1927) *''The Third Man'' (1949) *The works of Igor Stravinsky *Several works of H. G. Wells, including the film ''Things to Come'' (1936) The case was heard by District Chief Judge Lewis T. Babcock and was decided by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in 2005. It was appealed at the Tenth Circuit. On September 4, 2007, Judge Robert H. Henry of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the CTEA claim, as foreclosed by ''Eldred'', and the district court's holding that § 514 of the URAA does not exceed the limitations inherent in the Copyright Clause. However the Appeals Court did find "Based on the Eldred Court’s analysis, we examine the bedrock principle of copyright law that works in the public domain remain there and conclude that § 514 alters the traditional contours of copyright protection by deviating from this principle."〔''Golan v. Gonzales'', No. 05-CV-1259, page 17 (10th Cir. September 4, 2004).〕 and concluded "since § 514 has altered the traditional contours of copyright protection in a manner that implicates plaintiffs’ right to free expression, it must be subject to First Amendment review."〔''Golan v. Gonzales'', No. 05-CV-1259, at page 38 (10th Cir. September 4, 2004).〕 and remanded the case to the district court. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Golan v. Holder」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|