UPDATE: Back in June 2010, I wrote about the Tenth Circuit's decision in Golan v. Holder, Nos. 09-1234 & 09-1261 (10th Cir. June 21, 2010), which upheld the constitutionality of Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). The URAA granted copyright protection to certain foreign works that had been in the public domain in the United States. To round out the discussion of the case, see here for the Supreme Court's January 2012 decision agreeing with the Tenth Circuit and concluding that Section 514 is constitutional.
And for more history on the case, here is my original report on the case from June 2010:
Plaintiffs are various persons and entities who made their livelihoods by performing, distributing and selling public domain artistic works. Plaintiffs brought this action challenging the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act and Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), the latter of which granted copyright protection to certain foreign works that had been in the public domain in the United States. Somewhat more specifically, Section 514 restored "copyrights in foreign works that were formerly in the public domain in the United States for one of three specified reasons: failure to comply with formalities, lack of subject matter protection, or lack of national eligibility." As a result, the plaintiffs were either prohibited from using such previously public domain works or were required to pay cost-prohibitive licensing fees to the copyright holders. (The Tenth Circuit's opinion gives a significantly more detailed description of Section 514.)
The District Court for the District of Colorado initially granted summary judgment to the government and on appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs' challenge to the Copyright Term Extension Act was foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003). In addition, although the Tenth Circuit concluded that Section 514 of the URAA had not exceeded the limitations of the Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution, it held that the plaintiffs had "shown sufficient free expression interests in works removed from the public domain to require First Amendment scrutiny" of Section 514. The matter was thus remanded to the District Court to determine and apply the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny to Section 514.
Upon remand, the parties agreed that Section 514 is a content-neutral regulation of speech thereby subject to intermediate scrutiny. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion, concluding that Section 514 was unconstitutional to the extent it "suppresses the right of reliance parties to use works they exploited while the works were in the public domain." Both parties appealed: the government argued that Section 514 did not violate the First Amendment and the plaintiffs argued that the District Court had failed to provide all of the relief they had requested.
On appeal, analyzing Section 514 as a content-neutral regulation of speech, the Tenth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, concluding that "the government has demonstrated a substantial interest in protecting American copyright holders' interests abroad, and Section 514 is narrowly tailored to advance that interest."
As to the importance of the government interest asserted, the Tenth Circuit had "no difficulty in concluding that the government's interest in securing protections abroad for American copyright holders" satisfied the applicable standard. Section 514 secured foreign copyrights for American works, which previously had been unprotected, and thereby preserved the authors' economic and expressive interests. The court noted that some estimated that billions of dollars were lost each year because foreign countries were not providing copyright protections to American works in the public domain abroad.
The Tenth Circuit also concluded that Section 514 was narrowly tailored to further the substantial government interest asserted. The court cited evidence that foreign countries could be expected to provide only as much protection to American copyright holders as the United States would provide to foreign copyright holders and that some countries might follow the United States' example in that regard. Thus, in order to secure the benefits to American authors for their works abroad, the United States needed to impose the same burden on parties like the plaintiffs in the United States that it sought to impose on such foreign parties abroad. In short, "the benefit that the government sought to provide to American authors is congruent with the burden that Section 514 imposes on [so-called] reliance parties."
The Tenth Circuit thus reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that "because Section 514 advances a substantial government interest, and it does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to advance that interest, it is consistent with the First Amendment."
The case cite is Golan v. Holder, Nos. 09-1234 & 09-1261 (10th Cir. June 21, 2010).