|
||||||||
  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Supreme Court upholds copyright extensionsDecision seen as victory for movie, recording industry
By William Mears
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a victory for Congressional authority, the Supreme Court Wednesday allowed longer copyrights for thousands of so-called intellectual properties-- from Mickey Mouse films to Tom Clancy novels. The 7-2 ruling will make it harder for Internet publishers and others who wanted to make a range of older material available to the public without paying large royalties to the copyright holders. At issue was whether Congress unconstitutionally extended the terms of existing copyrights. The financial implications were potentially huge for publishers and owners of creative works such as movies, novels, commercials, and art. Justices were asked to decide whether the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act unfairly kept a range of copyrighted material from the public domain. Named for the late congressman and entertainer, the law extended copyright terms by 20 years. Under the act, so called "works for hire" owned by companies (television sitcom scripts, commercial jingles, etc.) now have a 95-year copyright. Works owned by their creators or their estates now last the life of the author, plus 70 years. Justices in their decision noted the Constitution specified copyrights are to extend for only "limited times," but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, noted the Constitution "gives Congress wide leeway to proscribe 'limited times' for copyright protection." She also said, "We find the [copyright extension] is a rational enactment; we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be." A key player in the case was the Walt Disney Co., which has a 1928 copyright on Mickey Mouse. Under the old law, that copyright would have expired this year, placing it in the public domain, where the cartoon character's likeness could have been used without Disney receiving a financial royalty. Similar fates awaited AOL-Time Warner, the parent company of CNN. Movies under their control like the "Wizard of Oz" and "Gone with the Wind" would also have been made available soon to the public domain. Proponents of the law, which include the motion picture and recording industries, say it is now in line with other countries around the world, such as the European Union, ensuring fair, level competition. The federal government has sided with those industries, saying the current law strikes a proper balance between a free communication of ideas and proper protection of those ideas. Opponents of the law were led by Eric Eldred, who owns a literary Web site (eldritchpress.org) which, according to the site, offers "free, accessible books. Read them and go in peace," with works by such authors as Nathaniel Hawthorne and Robert Frost. He was supported by library and writer groups. Beyond the financial considerations, Eldred made a free speech argument, claiming this and other existing intellectual property laws stifle creativity because the expression of ideas cannot be borrowed freely. Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissenting the case along with Justice Stephen Breyer, said the court failed "to protect the public interest in free access to the products of inventive and artistic genius." The justices debated two competing ideas: whether the Constitution's framers wanted copyright terms to be "short," to prevent monopolies and to spur learning and innovation, or whether copyrights provided authors with more money to fund their "creative endeavors" and to preserve existing works. The case was Eldred v. Ashcroft (Case no. 01-0618).
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
