Important Copyright Case by United States Supreme Court – Mickey Mouse Lives.

An article by Sidney D. Bluming, P.C.

On January 15, 2003, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of a 1998 amendment to our Copyright Laws extending the basic duration of copyright protection. In the heavily watched case of Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003 U.S. LEXIS 751), the Court rejected the arguments of those claiming that the amendment to Copyright Law '302 violated the right of freedom of speech under the United States Constitution, and that it improperly extended the duration of copyright protection on previously produced works. The amendment to Copyright Law '302, extended the duration of U.S. Copyrights to 70 years following the death of the author, increased from 50 years, and, in the case of anonymous works, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, extended the copyright term to either 95 years (up from 75 years) from the year of its first publication, or 120 years (up from 100 years) from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. Important copyright owners, such as Disney Studios, lobbied for the underlying legislation as some of their important copyrights reached expiration.

The focus of attack in the Eldred case was on the fact that our Constitution grants our Congress the right to establish for authors exclusive rights to their works "for limited times.” U.S. Const., Art. I, '8, cl. 8. The opponents argued that once the copyright time was fixed for a work, extending it made a copyright effectively perpetual. The Court disagreed and said that a limited time is not defined by any number, but by its being finite.

The Court made it clear that the amendment’s change of the duration of existing copyrights is consistent with previous amendments to our Copyright Law, and, therefore, perfectly permissible. Our original Law in 1790, had renewable terms for all copyrights of 14 years from the date of publication. Amendments in 1831 and 1909 extended the term to 42 years and 56 years, respectively, again from publication. In the 1976 amendment, the method of calculating the term was overhauled, but again applied to all existing copyrights. The Court addressed First Amendment (freedom of speech) concerns, noting that there remains a clear distinction between the expression of ideas, and the ideas themselves which are not subject to copyright protection. There is also what we call a "fair use” doctrine, which not only allows the ideas to be utilized, but also allows limited portions of the copyrighted work to be utilized. These reserved rights must satisfy the concerns of the freedom of speech advocates.

The Court went to great lengths to discuss the background and critical importance of the amendment. It "harmonizes the baseline United States copyright term with the term adopted by the European Union in 1993. See Council Directive 93/98EEC of 20 October 1993 Harmonizing the Term of Portection of Copyright and Certain Related Rights, 1993 Official J. Eur. Cmty. 290 (EU Council Directive 93/98).” This follows the 1976 amendment which sought to align U.S. law with the Berne Convention, then the standard. Conformity, from the perspective of United States copyright owners, was essential, because under both he Berne Convention and the European Union Directive, EU members are directed to refuse to recognize the longer term (70 years from the end of a natural life) to the works of non-EU country whose laws do not provide a similar term.

Clearly the opponents of the new amendment are disappointed and feel that our Constitution has suffered a set back. However, Disney Studios is delighted that it will be able to keep Mickey Mouse from running around freely for an additional twenty years.

For further information, please contact:

Sidney D. Bluming, P.C.
315 West 57th Street - 501
New York, New York 10019
Telephone: 212 977-8855
Telecopy: 212-977-8811
email: sbluming@bluminglaw.com
www.bluminglaw.com