Kahle v. Gonzales
487 F.3d 697 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The elimination of a formal copyright renewal requirement, which effectively extends the copyright term for existing works, does not alter the 'traditional contours of copyright' so as to trigger heightened First Amendment scrutiny. Such legislative changes are constitutional so long as traditional safeguards like fair use and the idea/expression dichotomy remain intact.
Facts:
- Brewster Kahle and Internet Archive created an online digital library to provide the public with free access to various media.
- Richard Prelinger and Prelinger Associates make digital versions of 'ephemeral' films available for free on the internet.
- Both Kahle and Prelinger seek to digitize and provide access to 'orphan works'—works with little commercial value and for which ownership is difficult or impossible to ascertain.
- Prior to 1978, U.S. copyright law operated on an 'opt-in' basis, requiring creators to affirmatively renew their copyright, which caused many works without commercial value to enter the public domain.
- The Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) eliminated the renewal requirement for works created between 1964 and 1977 and extended their copyright terms.
- This legislative change to an 'opt-out' system prevents Kahle and Prelinger from legally digitizing and sharing numerous orphan works that would have otherwise entered the public domain.
Procedural Posture:
- Brewster Kahle and others (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Attorney General in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The district court (trial court) granted the government's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The plaintiffs (Appellants) appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 Congress's elimination of the copyright renewal requirement for certain works, thereby changing the system from 'opt-in' to 'opt-out' and extending their copyright terms, violate the First Amendment or the 'limited Times' provision of the Copyright Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Farris, J.
No. Congress's elimination of the copyright renewal requirement and the consequent extension of copyright terms for existing works does not violate the First Amendment or the Copyright Clause. The Supreme Court's precedent in Eldred v. Ashcroft is controlling. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs' challenge, although framed as a shift from an 'opt-in' to an 'opt-out' system, is functionally indistinguishable from the copyright term extension argument that the Supreme Court rejected in Eldred. Extending the copyright term of existing works to achieve parity with future works, while leaving intact the 'built-in First Amendment accommodations' of fair use and the idea/expression dichotomy, does not alter the 'traditional contours of copyright' and therefore does not trigger heightened First Amendment review. Furthermore, the argument that the current term violates the 'limited Times' provision was also settled in Eldred, which deferred to Congress's rational judgment in balancing the interests of authors and the public.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the significant judicial deference granted to Congress in the realm of copyright law, reinforcing the precedent set by Eldred v. Ashcroft. It clarifies that substantial changes to copyright formalities, such as the elimination of renewal requirements, are viewed through the same constitutional lens as direct term extensions. The ruling effectively closes the door on challenges that attempt to distinguish between the length of copyright and the conditions for obtaining it, signaling that such policy arguments must be directed at Congress, not the courts.
