Golan v. Holder,^[a] 565 U.S. 302 (2012), was aUS Supreme Court case that dealt withcopyright and thepublic domain. It held that the "limited time" language of theUnited States Constitution'sCopyright Clause does not preclude the extension of copyright protections to works previously in the public domain.

Golan v. Holder
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 5, 2011 Decided January 18, 2012
Full case name	Lawrence Golan, et al. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.
Docket no.	10-545
Citations	565U.S. 302 (more) 132 S. Ct. 873; 181L. Ed. 2d 835
Case history
Prior	Golan v. Ashcroft, 310F. Supp. 2d1215 (D. Colo. 2004); affirmed sub nom.Golan v. Gonzales, 501F.3d1179 (10th Cir. 2007); on remand,Golan v. Holder, 611 F. Supp. 2d1165 (D. Colo. 2009); reversed, 609 F.3d1076 (10th Cir. 2010);cert. granted,562U.S. 1270 (2011).
Holding
"Limited time" language of Copyright Clause does not preclude the extension of copyright protections to works previously in the public domain. Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia ·Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas ·Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer ·Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor ·Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Sotomayor
Dissent	Breyer, joined by Alito
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Uruguay Round Agreements Act,Copyright Clause

In particular, the case challenged the constitutionality of the application of Section 514 of theUruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994, which implemented the provisions of trade agreements seeking to equalize copyright protection on an international basis. In the United States, the Act newly grantedcopyright status to foreign works previously in the public domain.

The two main arguments against the application of the Act in the case were that restoring copyright violates the "limited time" language of the United States Constitution's Copyright Clause, and that restoring to copyright works that had passed into the public domain interferes with the people'sFirst Amendment right to use, copy and otherwise exploit the works and to freely express themselves through these works, thus also violating the Constitution's Copyright Clause.^[1]

The US Supreme Court held on January 18, 2012 that Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act does not exceed Congress's authority under the Copyright Clause, and the court affirmed the judgment of the lower court by 6–2, with the opinion written byJustice Ginsburg.^[2][1][3] The practical effect of the decision is to confirm that works that were previously free to use, such asProkofiev'sPeter and the Wolf, are no longer in the public domain and are subject to use only with the permission of the copyright holder, such as through paid licensing, until their copyright term expires again.^[4]

After theSupreme Court of the United States upheld the 1998Copyright Term Extension Act inEldred v. Ashcroft (2003), theUnited States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed the plaintiffs' challenge to that act in 2004 (Golan v. Ashcroft).^[5] The remaining constitutional challenge to the 1994Uruguay Round Agreements Act was dismissed the following year (Golan v. Gonzales).^[6]

The case affected the copyright status of potentially millions of works,^[7] including:^{[citation needed]}

• Metropolis (1927)
• The Third Man (1949)
• The works ofIgor Stravinsky
• Several works ofH. G. Wells, including the filmThings to Come (1936)

The case was heard by District Chief JudgeLewis Babcock and was decided by theUnited States District Court for the District of Colorado in 2005. It was appealed at theTenth Circuit.

On September 4, 2007, JudgeRobert H. Henry of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of theCTEA claim, as foreclosed byEldred, and the district court's holding that § 514 of theURAA does not exceed the limitations inherent in the Copyright Clause.^[8]

However, the Appeals Court did find "Based on the Eldred Court's analysis, we examine the bedrock principle of copyright law that works in the public domain remain there and conclude that § 514 alters the traditional contours of copyright protection by deviating from this principle"^[9] and concluded "since § 514 has altered the traditional contours of copyright protection in a manner that implicates plaintiffs' right to free expression, it must be subject toFirst Amendment review."^[10] It remanded the case to the district court.

A related issue was then brought before the court asGolan v. Holder after conductorsLawrence Golan andRichard Kapp filed suit. In a holding published on April 3, 2009, Judge Babcock reversed his earlier finding that the First Amendment was not applicable to resurrecting foreign copyright claims. Judge Babcock found that aspects of the 1994Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which brought some works whose copyright had lapsed back under copyright, violated First Amendment rights of so-called reliance parties,^[11] i.e., parties who had been using a work formerly in the public domain before the URAA became effective, relying on the work being in the public domain, and who would now no longer be able to do so.^[12] He wrote,

In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain. Removing works from the public domain violated Plaintiffs' vested First Amendment interests. [...] Accordingly—to the extent Section 514 suppresses the right of reliance parties to use works they exploited while the works were in the public domain—Section 514 is substantially broader than necessary to achieve the Government's interest.^[13]

He also indicated a possible solution by suggesting that the protection of reliance parties be made not limited in time. However, further appeals by copyright owners were expected.^[14]

On June 21, 2010, the Tenth Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of the government, thus upholding the constitutionality of the URAA copyright restoration.^[15][16] Golan filed forcertiorari in theSupreme Court of the United States asking for the Court to hear the case.^[17]On March 7, 2011, the Court granted the writ of certiorari.^[18][19] Oral argument was held October 5, 2011.^[20]

On June 12, 2011, theInternational Music Score Library Project (IMSLP, Petrucci Music Library) announced they would submit anamicus curiae brief in the case; a group ofHarvard Law School students, supervised by ProfessorCharles Nesson, represented IMSLP.^[21] Other parties that filedamicus curiae briefs in support of the petitioners include:^[22]

On January 18, 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit's decision 6–2. The majority opinion was written byJustice Ginsburg and joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomayor. The dissent was written byJustice Breyer and joined by Justice Alito. Justice Kagan recused.^[24][25]

The majority held that "The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne), which took effect in 1886, is the principal accord governing international copyright relations."^[2] The court also held that changing the term of copyright for works in such a way that it diminishes or eliminates rights in the work (in this case the right of the public to the works) does not violate thetakings clause of theFifth Amendment.^[2]

Breyer, dissenting, wrote:

The statute before us, however, does not encourage anyone to produce a single new work. By definition, it bestows monetary rewards only on owners of old works—works that have already been created and already are in the American public domain.

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 565
• List of copyright case law

• Gordon, Wendy J. (2013). "Dissemination Must Serve Authors: How the U.S. Supreme Court Erred".Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues.10 (1):1–19.SSRN 2305535.
• Ochoa, Tyler T. (2011)."Is the Copyright Public Domain Irrevocable? An Introduction toGolan v. Holder"(PDF).Vanderbilt Law Review en Banc.64:123–146. Archived fromthe original(PDF) on November 4, 2011.
• Pelanda, Brian (2010). "Copyright's 'Traditional Contours' and 'Bedrock Principles': Golan's Potential to Secure First Amendment Protection Over the Public Domain".Whittier Law Review.31: 547.SSRN 2026732.

• Text ofGolan v. Holder,565U.S. 302 (2012) is available from:CourtListenerGoogle ScholarOyez (oral argument audio)
• Complaint inGolan v. Ashcroft at cyber.law.harvard.edu
• Jones, Pamela (September 9, 2007)."Fair Use: Affirmative Defense or Right? Do I Have to Choose?".Groklaw.