Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

GOLAN v. HOLDER

Docket No.: 10-545
Certiorari Granted: 03/07/11
Argued: October 5, 2011
Decided: 01/18/12

Topics:

copyright, Economic Activity, First Amendment, Due Process, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, IPO, Takings Clause, copyright, patent, property rights

PartyNames: Lawrence Golan, et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.
Petitioner: Lawrence Golan, et al.
Respondent: Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Citation: 609 F.3d 1076

Lawrence Golan, et al.
v.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.
Background:

Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (Section 514) did something unique in the history of American intellectual property law: It "restored" copyright protection in thousands of works that the Copyright Act had placed in the Public Domain, where they remained for years as the common property of all Americans. The Petitioners in this case are orchestra conductors, educators, performers, film archivists and motion picture distributors, who relied for years on the free availability of these works in the Public Domain, which they performed, adapted, restored and distributed without restriction. The enactment of Section 514 therefore had a dramatic effect on Petitioners' free speech and expression rights, as well as their economic interests. Section 514 eliminated Petitioners' right to perform, share and build upon works they had once been able to use freely.

Question Presented:

1. Does the Progress Clause of the United States Constitution prohibit Congress from taking works out of the Public Domain? 2. Does Section 514 violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?

Question:

(1) Does the Progress Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibit Congress from taking works out of the public domain? (2) Does Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?

Note:

JUSTICE KAGAN TOOK NO PART

GOLAN v. HOLDER
ORAL ARGUMENT

10/05/11

Listen to Oral Argument in GOLAN v. HOLDER
Holding: AFFIRMED (EK no part)
Decision: Decision: 7 votes for Holder, 2 vote(s) against
Vote: 6-2
Majority: Ginsburg,Roberts,Scalia,Kennedy,Thomas,Sotomayor
Dissenting: Breyer,Alito
Recused: Kagan
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)