Eldred v. Ashcroft
537 U.S. 186 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Copyright Clause's grant of power to Congress to secure copyrights for 'limited Times' for authors' writings empowers Congress to extend the term of existing copyrights, so long as the extended term is finite and not perpetual.
Facts:
- The U.S. Constitution's Copyright Clause grants Congress the power 'To promote the Progress of Science... by securing for limited Times to Authors... the exclusive Right to their... Writings.'
- Since the first Copyright Act in 1790, Congress has repeatedly extended copyright terms (e.g., in 1831, 1909, and 1976), and on each occasion applied the extensions to both future and existing copyrights.
- In 1993, the European Union (EU) issued a directive for member states to adopt a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.
- In 1998, Congress passed the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), which extended the terms of all existing and future copyrights by 20 years, generally resulting in a term of life of the author plus 70 years.
- The CTEA's extension prevented numerous works from the 1920s and 1930s from entering the public domain as scheduled under prior law.
- Eric Eldred and other petitioners are individuals and businesses, including online publishers of public domain works, whose services rely on the expiration of copyrights.
Procedural Posture:
- Eric Eldred and other petitioners filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a judgment that the CTEA was unconstitutional.
- On cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court, a trial court, entered judgment in favor of the Attorney General.
- Petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, upholding the CTEA's constitutionality.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitioners' request for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which extends the duration of existing copyrights by 20 years, exceed Congress's authority under the Copyright Clause's 'limited Times' provision?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No, the Copyright Term Extension Act does not exceed Congress's authority under the Copyright Clause. The Clause empowers Congress to prescribe 'limited Times' for copyright protection and to secure the same level and duration of protection for all copyright holders, present and future. The term 'limited' means confined within certain bounds or circumscribed, not fixed or unalterable. An unbroken historical practice, beginning with the First Congress in 1790, demonstrates that Congress has consistently applied term extensions to existing as well as future copyrights. This practice, combined with analogous precedent in patent law allowing retroactive legislative changes, establishes that Congress may extend the duration of existing copyrights. The Court must defer to Congress's judgment that the CTEA was a rational exercise of its power, enacted to harmonize U.S. copyright law with that of the European Union, to encourage copyright holders to restore and disseminate older works, and to account for demographic changes such as longer lifespans. Furthermore, the CTEA does not violate the First Amendment because copyright law contains built-in safeguards, such as the idea/expression dichotomy and the fair use doctrine, which adequately protect free speech interests.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, the CTEA's retroactive extension of existing copyright terms is unconstitutional. The Copyright Clause serves the ultimate purpose of promoting progress by guaranteeing that innovations will enter the public domain after the exclusive period expires. This creates a quid pro quo: a limited monopoly for the author in exchange for eventual public access. Retroactively extending a copyright term upsets this bargain by providing a windfall to the copyright holder without any new consideration or creative act, thereby failing to promote the 'Progress of Science.' This gratuitous transfer of wealth from the public frustrates the legitimate expectations of those who planned to use the work upon its entry into the public domain. The majority's reliance on historical practice is misplaced, as many early private patent extensions were for already-expired patents, an action that is now understood to be unconstitutional. The Court has a duty to review and invalidate congressional grants of monopoly that overreach the constitutional purpose of the Clause.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes, the CTEA is unconstitutional because it lacks a rational basis and its practical effect is to create a virtually perpetual copyright term, which inhibits rather than promotes the progress of science and learning. The 20-year extension offers a negligible economic incentive for authors to create new works, as the present value of royalties 75 years in the future is nearly zero. However, the extension imposes substantial public harm by increasing costs and creating a 'permissions' barrier that prevents historians, educators, libraries, and artists from accessing and using a vast cultural heritage of older works. The claimed justification of harmonizing U.S. and European law is weak, as the CTEA fails to create uniformity for a large share of commercially significant works, such as works-for-hire. The statute primarily serves private financial interests, not the public interest, and thus falls outside the scope of power granted by the Copyright Clause.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Congress's broad discretion to set and extend copyright terms, significantly limiting judicial review of such legislation under the 'limited Times' provision. By upholding the retroactive application of term extensions, the Court affirmed a long-standing legislative practice and provided a strong presumption of constitutionality for future extensions. The ruling shifts the debate over copyright duration from a constitutional question to a matter of legislative policy, empowering rights-holders to lobby for longer terms based on economic and international harmonization arguments. Consequently, the public domain's role as an engine for new creativity and access to cultural heritage is subordinated to Congress's policy choices, which may favor existing copyright owners.
