Kahle v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 697 (9th Cir. 2007)
Facts: Plaintiffs Brewster Kahle and the Internet Archive operate websites that provide free online access to books, documents, music, videos, and websites. Plaintiff Richard Pellinger operates a website that allows free access to “ephemeral†films. The plaintiffs’ websites provide free access to copyrighted or public domain material of little or no commercial value. Much of this material is considered “orphaned†material because copyright ownership is hard to ascertain and the owners themselves have little interest in maintaining copyrights.
Prior to 1978 these orphaned works would enter the public domain because the owners, having abandoned their works, would not follow procedure to renew their copyright. Thus these works would enter the public domain. The Copyright Term Extension Act (“CTEAâ€) and the Copyright Renewal Act (“CRAâ€) altered this system and repealed renewal requirements for works created between 1964 and 1977, thereby increasing copyright terms for orphaned works and preventing works from entering the public domain as soon as they would before the acts were passed.
The plaintiffs argued that under Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), the increase in copyright terms required First Amendment review. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that the increase in copyright terms violated the Copyright Clause’s “limited times†requirement.
Prcedural History: The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, so the plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Circuit.
Holding: The 9th Circuit held that the Supreme Court had addressed the plaintiff’s arguments in Eldred. The Court held that the CRA and the CTEA were designed to align current and future copyright terms, so the copyright extensions were not subject to First Amendment review. The Court suggested that existing First Amendment protections such as fair use were sufficient to protect speech interests potentially compromised by the CRA and CTEA.
With respect to the plaintiff’s “limited times†argument, the Court held that the “limited times†argument was the plaintiffs’ way of saying they thought the CTEA and CRA extended copyright terms were too long. The Court stated that in analyzing this clause, Congress should undergo a balancing test between the “impetus to authors by longer terms against the benefit provided to the public by shorter terms.†This test is subject to rationality review.
Congress apparently did undergo this balancing test and determined that longer terms would encourage copyright owners to restore and distribute their works. The Court here was unwilling to second guess Congress’s determination.
Note: The Court here seems to be telling the plaintiffs to suck it up and deal with the longer copyright terms. The plaintiffs can either find the copyright owners and get permission to distribute the content or wait for the content to enter public domain before hosting it.
Facts: Plaintiffs Brewster Kahle and the Internet Archive operate websites that provide free online access to books, documents, music, videos, and websites. Plaintiff Richard Pellinger operates a website that allows free access to “ephemeral†films. The plaintiffs’ websites provide free access to copyrighted or public domain material of little or no commercial value. Much of this material is considered “orphaned†material because copyright ownership is hard to ascertain and the owners themselves have little interest in maintaining copyrights.
Prior to 1978 these orphaned works would enter the public domain because the owners, having abandoned their works, would not follow procedure to renew their copyright. Thus these works would enter the public domain. The Copyright Term Extension Act (“CTEAâ€) and the Copyright Renewal Act (“CRAâ€) altered this system and repealed renewal requirements for works created between 1964 and 1977, thereby increasing copyright terms for orphaned works and preventing works from entering the public domain as soon as they would before the acts were passed.
The plaintiffs argued that under Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), the increase in copyright terms required First Amendment review. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that the increase in copyright terms violated the Copyright Clause’s “limited times†requirement.
Prcedural History: The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, so the plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Circuit.
Holding: The 9th Circuit held that the Supreme Court had addressed the plaintiff’s arguments in Eldred. The Court held that the CRA and the CTEA were designed to align current and future copyright terms, so the copyright extensions were not subject to First Amendment review. The Court suggested that existing First Amendment protections such as fair use were sufficient to protect speech interests potentially compromised by the CRA and CTEA.
With respect to the plaintiff’s “limited times†argument, the Court held that the “limited times†argument was the plaintiffs’ way of saying they thought the CTEA and CRA extended copyright terms were too long. The Court stated that in analyzing this clause, Congress should undergo a balancing test between the “impetus to authors by longer terms against the benefit provided to the public by shorter terms.†This test is subject to rationality review.
Congress apparently did undergo this balancing test and determined that longer terms would encourage copyright owners to restore and distribute their works. The Court here was unwilling to second guess Congress’s determination.
Note: The Court here seems to be telling the plaintiffs to suck it up and deal with the longer copyright terms. The plaintiffs can either find the copyright owners and get permission to distribute the content or wait for the content to enter public domain before hosting it.