CBS/AP/ January 18, 2012, 3:08 PM

Court allows re-copyright of public domain works

The works of director Alfred Hitchcock could be among those affected by the Supreme Court ruling on copyrights.

The works of director Alfred Hitchcock could be among those affected by the Supreme Court ruling on copyrights. / AP

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld a law Wednesday giving U.S. copyright protection to paintings by Pablo Picasso, films of Alfred Hitchcock, music from Igor Stravinsky and millions of other works by foreign artists that had been freely available.

The justices said in a 6-2 decision Wednesday that Congress acted within its power when it extended protection to works that had been in the public domain. The law's challengers complained that community orchestras, academics and others who rely on works that are available for free have effectively been priced out of performing "Peter and the Wolf" and other pieces that had been mainstays of their repertoires.

The case concerned a 1994 law that was intended to bring the U.S. into compliance with an international treaty on intellectual property. Without it, American artists might have found it hard to protect their work in certain countries that lacked specific copyright arrangements with the United States.

The law requires people to ask permission or pay royalties before copying, playing or republishing foreign works that previously could not have been copyrighted in the United States.

"Neither congressional practice nor our decisions treat the public domain, in any and all cases, as untouchable by copyright legislation. The First Amendment likewise provides no exceptional solicitude for works in the public domain," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her opinion for the court.

The court had ruled back in 2003 that Congress may extend the life of a copyright. Wednesday's decision was the first time it said that published works lacking a copyright could later be protected.

A year later, Congress adopted legislation to align with an international copyright treaty known as the Berne Convention, which is an agreement to provide a minimum level of copyright protection for all foreign works. Wired reported that the Convention included protecting property if is still copyrighted in its country of origin, prompting congress to re-protect foreign works that may have lost their copyright in the U.S.

But Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for himself and Justice Samuel Alito, said that an important purpose of a copyright is to encourage an author or artist to produce new work. "The statute before us, however, does not encourage anyone to produce a single new work. By definition, it bestows monetary rewards only on owners of old works," Breyer said.

According to Wired, a petition by a group of orchestra conductors, educators, performers, publishers and film archivists has been started, asking the court to reconsider their decision. They argue that by allowing works to be re-copyrighted from the public domain, it infringes on the free speech rights of people who had previously been using the works.

Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case because she worked on it while serving in the Justice Department.

The case is Golan v. Holder, 10-545.

© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
20 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
pickapeck13 says:
Yet again, people who have done nothing to earn it will reap money from the pockets from people who have done nothing to deserve it.
reply
karek40 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
agree and our court renders another faulty decision based on politics rather than logic.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
peacefulperson says:
More info please CBS. This article is pretty skimpy on real information about copyright and which works it affects.
reply
Filmguy870 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Word.. This is "journalism?" Sheesh...
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Dgunner says:
Most of the people who violate this law don't have the money to pay the fine and the US government doesn't have the money or won't allocate the money to build all the BIG prisons to lock everyone in for violating these copyright laws.In reality all they have done is wate a bunch of tax payers money and thier time.BFD!
reply
omega39-2009 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
But, but, but, there is always private prisons with non union workers funded by money borrowed from China.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
jsf14 says:
I'm guessing, though the article does not bother to say, that this applies only to works that are copyrighted under a law in another country. In other words you cannot copyright Shakespeare';s works or the works by any other author or artist long dead. It would be useful to be reminded how long after the originator's death a copyright stays in effect.
reply
karek40 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
apparently according to this ruling they can re-copyright forever. Your decendents will have to pay their decendents for the use of the material originally copyrighted by the long dead.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
B_Erhart says:
In the coming dystopia THIS will be irrelevant...
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Filmguy870 says:
Does that mean I can copyright Silent Night? It's in the Public Domain, after all.....jus' sayin'...
reply
karek40 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
or the bible, its a best seller every year, lets re-copyright if you are say Pauls decendent.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
credibility2 says:
The U.S. Supreme Court made the right decision. Now if we could just stop all those smarmy registered copyright infringers from illegally copying materials, we'd all be fine. Biggest offenders are schools, colleges and universities, followed by church choirs, etc.
reply
rwsmith29456 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Just to mention that our church choir does NOT copy protected pieces.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ganguandaland says:
Simply put, the United States Congress passed a law that stated that if a work was copyrighted in its country of origin, it would be copyrighted here. The Supreme Court upheld the law.

We expect other countries to honor the copyright of US artists. Shouldn't they be able to expect the same level of respect from us?
reply
Lerianis4 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Agreed, mnagtwa. The fact is that WORLD-FREAKING-WIDE.... copyrights should be limited to 5 years, at most, after something has the copyright registered.
rwsmith29456 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I agree with ganguandaland. Copyright laws should be as universal as possible between countries and if it is copyrighted in another country it should be copyrighted here. I don't advocate that works that are TRULY in the public domain be copyrighted But because people SAY something is in public domain doesn't mean that it really is. And people that think copyright should be limited to a ridiculously short time are obviously not producers of copyrighted works, but users that want more for free at the expense of writers, artists and musicians, etc.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Bouillabaisse says:
The US Supreme Court has become a farce, siding with narrow business interests over the public good.
reply
karek40 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
YEP
linkicon reporticon emailicon
JimBurnell says:
This could have a devastating effect on Project Gutenberg.
reply
See all 20 Comments