unconstitutional taking. It cites CCC to similar effect. See 44 F.3d at 74 (“[A] rule that the adoption of such a reference by a state legislature or administrative body deprived the copyright owner of its property would raise very substantial problems under the Takings Clause of the Constitution.”). ICC adds that such a holding would also contravene the Copyright Act, which states that “[w]hen an individual author’s ownership of a copyright … has not previously been transferred voluntarily by that individual author, no action by any governmental body or other official or organization purporting to seize, expropriate, transfer, or exercise rights of ownership with respect to the copyright, or any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, shall be given effect under this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 201(e).
There is no strict formula for assessing a Takings Clause claim, and each case must be addressed in light of the particular circumstances presented. See Penn. Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of N.Y., 438 U.S. 104, 123–24 (1978). However, the Supreme Court has identified three factors of “particular significance”: (1) “the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant”; (2) “the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed
40
