Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:15:54.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Golan V. Holder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anupam Chander ,
Madhavi Sunder  and
Uyen Le
Anupam Chander
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis School of Law
Madhavi Sunder
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis School of Law
Uyen Le
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

International intellectual propertyBerne Conventiontreaty implementationUruguay Round Agreements ActCopyright ClauseFirst Amendmentfreedom of speech
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 106 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 637 - 642
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Golan v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 873 (2012).

2 Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Pub. L. No. 103-465, sec. 514, §104A, 108 Stat. 4809, 4976-81 (1994) (codified at 17 U.S.C. §§104A, 109(a) (2011)).

3 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Sept. 9, 1886, as amended July 14, 1967, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-27 (1986), 828 UNTS 221 [hereinafter Convention].

4 Id., Art. 18(1).

5 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, Apr. 15, 1994, 1869 UNTS 299, 33 ILM 1197 (1994).

6 Golan v. Gonzales, No. Civ. 01-B-1854 (BNB), 2005 WL 914754, at *17 (D. Colo. Apr. 20, 2005).

7 Golan v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1179, 1187 (10th Cir. 2007).

8 Golan v. Holder, 611 F.Supp.2d 1165, 1170-71 (D. Colo. 2009) (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989)).

9 Golan v. Holder, 609 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 2010).

10 Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).

11 Id. at 199.

12 Id. at 219-21.

13 U.S. Const. Art. I, §8, cl. 8.

14 Act of May 31, 1790, §1, 1 Stat. 124.

15 Act of Dec. 18, 1919, Pub. L. No. 66-102, ch. 11, 41 Stat. 368 (amending Copyright Act of Mar. 4, 1909, §§8,21) (repealed 1976); Act of Sept. 25, 1941, Pub. L. No. 77-258, ch. 421, 55 Stat. 732 (amending Copyright Act of Mar. 4, 1909, §8, “so as to preserve the rights of authors during the present emergency and for other purposes”) (repealed 1976).

16 Quoting Brief for the Petitioners at 21, Golan v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 873 (2012) (No. 10-545).

17 Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 34 (2003).

18 17 U.S.C. §102(b) (2011).

19 17 U.S.C. §107 (2011).

20 Brief for the Petitioners, supra note 16, at 45.

21 Quoting Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson (Aug. 13, 1813), in 6 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 379, 383 (Looney, J. ed. 2009)Google Scholar.

22 Convention, supra note 3, Art. 18(3) (“The application of [the retroactivity] principle shall be subject to any provisions contained in special conventions to that effect existing or to be concluded between countries of the Union.”).

23 Act of May 31, 1790, §1, supra note 14.

24 Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity 36 (paperback 2003) (2001).

25 Id. at 50, quoted in Yu, Peter K., The Copyright Divide, 25 Cardozo L. Rev. 331, 342 n.74 (2003)Google Scholar.

26 Quoting S. Rep. No. 50-622, at 2 (1888). The worry that the United States might become a Barbary Coast for nefarious international activity appeared recently in another Supreme Court case, but there the Court dismissed the concern. Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 130 S.Ct. 2869, 2886 (2010).

27 Senate Comm. on Judiciary, The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, S. Rep. No. 100-352, at 2 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.Ca.N. 3706, 3707.

28 Brief for the Respondents at 54, Golan v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 873 (2012) (No. 10-545).

29 Golan v. Holder, 611 F.Supp.2d 1165, 1177 (2009).

30 Nicklin, Philip H., Remarks on Literary Property 84 (Philadelphia, Nicklin, P.H. & Johnson, T. 1838)Google Scholar, quoted in Bowker, Richard Rogers, Copyright, Its History and Its Law 345 (1912)Google Scholar.