Golan v. Gonzales

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Golan v. Gonzales
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Syllabus
A case challenging the constitutionality of restoring copyright of foreign works that were previously in the United States public domain by the United States Congress. The main argument was that restoring copyright violates the "limited times" clause of the United States Constitution. On September 4, 2007, the Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court after finding that § 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act "has altered the traditional contours of copyright protection in a manner that implicates plaintiffs' right to free expression" and therefore must be subject to First Amendment review.
— Excerpted from Golan v. Gonzales on Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia.

501 F.3d 1179

LAWRENCE GOLAN; ESTATE OF RICHARD KAPP; S.A. PUBLISHING CO, IN C., d/b/a ESS.A.Y. RECORDINGS; SYMPHONY OF THE CANYONS; RON HALL d/b/a FESTIVAL FILMS; and JOHN McDONOUGH, d/b/a TIM ELESS VIDEO ALTERNATIVES INTERNATIONAL, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; and MARYBETH PETERS, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office of the United States, Defendants-Appellees

No. 05-1259

United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.


September 4, 2007


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Colorado

(D.C. No. 1:01-cv-01854 LTB-BNB)


Lawrence Lessig, Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School, Stanford California (Hugh Q. Gottschalk and Carolyn J. Fairless, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP, Denver, Colorado, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

John S. Koppel, Appellate Staff Civil Division (Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, William J. Leone, United States Attorney, and William Kanter, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Washington, D.C., with him on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.

Eric M. Lieberman and David B. Goldstein, Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman, P.C., New York, New York, filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________

Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

______________________________________
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).