|
Supreme Court upholds copyright protection act
by Alexis Dyer
National-World Co-Editor
FILE PHOTO
The extended copyright protection act means Mickey is safe again....at least for the time being.
|
On Jan. 15 the Supreme Court made a 7-to-2 decision to uphold the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act.
The act confirms that Congress was within its constitutional rights when it last extended copyright in 1998. Under the 1998 act, copyright extends for the life of the artist plus 70 years. Corporations may also hold copyrights for 95 years.
The length that individuals and companies may hold a copyright has long been a gray area; the Constitution states that Congress may authorize a copyright for a “limited time.”
Congress has lengthened the exact amount a copyright may be held 11 times in the past 40 years, according to The New York Times.
Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig argued against the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of a coalition including Internet publisher Eric Eldred. Of this dilemma he said, according to The New York Times, “The court is saying that the framers of the constitution didn’t solve this for us. Instead we’re going to need to use smart legislation and sensible contracts to protect the public domain.”
The decision was supported by families of deceased artists as well as entertainment industry corporations. Lessig called it the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act,” according to the New York Times. Without the Supreme Court ruling, the copyright on the Disney mascot would have run out next year, allowing people in the public domain to use it for their own purposes.
In a speech last summer Lessig stated, “Ours is less and less a free society,” according to The New York Times. “Culture,” says Lessig, “is owned.”
Lessig advocates a weakening of copyright protection and strengthening of public domain. He says that because almost every creative work is built on others, the lengthening of copyright will diminish creativity and free expression. He also said that without a shortened period of protection, areas of society such as the Internet are in danger of becoming overrun with government and corporate interests.
Proponents of the law argue that copyright controls are a necessary incentive to artists and corporations, according to The New York Times. They also say that copyright controls have lengthened over time out of necessity. They cite such examples as lengthened life spans of artists, the evolving needs of authors and publishers, and the increasing role of international commerce in society. The 1998 copyright protection act was, in fact, intended to match the copyright protections offered by the European Union.
Harvard Law School Professor Arthur Miller, who filed a brief opposing Lessig at the Federal District Court level, suggested compromises to solve the issues with copyright laws. Congress could, Miller told The New York Times, enact a compulsory licensing system that would required copyright holders to let people use their work for a set price. Other ideas to increase the public domain include allowing copyrights to expire unless their owners renew them, so that people may access material that no longer holds commercial value.
There are already several cases pending regarding to what degree consumers have a “fair use” right to make personal copies or to use copyrighted material for parody or scholarly purposes, according to The New York Times.
Proskauer Rose lawyer Charles Sims, who represented major publishers in the case, told The New York Times that the copyright law has “built-in First Amendment protections” which negate arguments that the act infringes upon such rights.
Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represents users of a controversial device that allows them to send television shows to one another via the Internet, argues that the decision enhances fair use arguments for other copyright cases.
“If we can’t count on the term limit to defend the public’s interest in copyright,” he told The New York Times, “we’re going to need to focus even more on the other limits built into the law. If Steamboat Willie is not going to fall into the public domain, it is even more important for people to be able to use Mickey to make fun of Disney.”
|
