Golan v. Gonzales

"Golan v. Gonzales" [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.] is a case originally filed in 2001 challenging the constitutionality of restoring copyright of foreign works that were previously in the United States public domain by the United States Congress. The main argument was that restoring copyright violates the "limited times" clause of the United States Constitution.

After the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Copyright Term Extension Act in "Eldred v. Ashcroft" (2003), the Colorado District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' challenge to that act in 2004. ["Golan v. Ashcroft", 310 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (D. Colo. 2004). Full text of this decision is available [http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/constitutionality/GolanVAshcroft(DColo3-15-04).htm here] .] The remaining constitutional challenge to the Uruguay Round Agreements Act was dismissed the following year. ["Golan v. Gonzales", No. 01-B-1854, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6800 (D. Colo April 20, 2005).]

Among the works related to this case were:

*"Metropolis" (1927)
*"The Third Man" (1949)
*The works of Igor Stravinsky
*The works of J.R.R. Tolkien
*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 U.S. 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. The Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court after finding that § 514 "has altered the traditional contours of copyright protection in a manner that implicates plaintiffs' right to free expression" ["Golan v. Gonzales", No. 05-CV-1259, at page 37 (10th Cir. Sep. 4, 2004).] and therefore must be subject to First Amendment review.

Related case

*"Kahle v. Ashcroft"
* [http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/04-5240a.pdf "Luck's Music Library, Inc. v. Gonzales", 407 F.3d 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2005)]

ources and notes

External links

* [http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/golan-v-gonzales Golan v. Gonzales] at Stanford Center for Internet and Society
* [http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070907195435565 Fair Use: Affirmative Defense or Right? Do I Have to Choose?] on Groklaw