Originally published March 7, 2011

Keywords: Uruguay Round Agreements Act, copyright protection, foreign works,

Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case of interest to the business community:

Uruguay Round Agreements Act—Copyright Protection of Foreign Works

Article 18 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works ("Article 18"), which the United States joined in 1989, requires that signatory nations provide copyright protection to certain foreign works. In 1994, Congress implemented Article 18 by enacting Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act ("Section 514"), which restores copyright protection to certain foreign works that were previously in the public domain. Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545, to decide whether Section 514 violates the U.S. Constitution's Copyright Clause or First Amendment. The case is important both to businesses whose works received renewed protection under Section 514 and to businesses that wish to make use of such works.

Petitioners are orchestra conductors, educators, performers, publishers, film archivists, and motion-picture distributors who record, manufacture, and distribute foreign works in the public domain. Under Section 514, certain foreign works are now copyright-protected, and petitioners thus are prohibited from using those works unless they pay a licensing fee. 

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 514 in district court, which granted summary judgment in favor of the government on both petitioners' Copyright Clause claim and their First Amendment claim. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Copyright Clause claim, holding that Section 514 did not grant "perpetual monopolies" and that Congress's decision to comply with the Berne Convention was not "so irrational or so unrelated to the aims of the Copyright Clause that it exceeds the reach of congressional power." 501 F.3d 1179, 1186–87. The Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the First Amendment claim, however, holding that Section 514 infringed petitioners' "vested First Amendment interests" by departing from the traditional principle that "works in the Public Domain remain there." Id. at 1192, 1194. The Tenth Circuit remanded for a First Amendment analysis under the proper level of scrutiny.

On remand, after the parties agreed that Section 514 is content-neutral and therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny, the district court held that Section 514 violates the First Amendment. The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that Section 514 is narrowly tailored to advance the important governmental interest in protecting American copyright protections abroad.

Absent extensions, amicus briefs in support of the petitioners will be due on April 28, 2011, and amicus briefs in support of the respondents will be due on May 31, 2011.

* * * * * * * * * *

Last week the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in the following cases of interest to the business community:

First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards, No. 10-708: The questions presented are (1) whether a private purchaser of real-estate settlement services has standing under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 to maintain an action in federal court in the absence of any claim that the alleged violation affected the price, quality, or other characteristics of the settlement services provided; and (2) whether such a purchaser has standing to sue under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

United States ex rel. Summers v. LHC Group, Inc., No. 10-827: The question presented concerns the effect of a failure to file a False Claims Act qui tam complaint under seal.

Please visit us at www.appellate.net.

Visit us at www.mayerbrown.com.

Copyright 2011. Mayer Brown LLP, Mayer Brown International LLP, Mayer Brown JSM and/or Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. All rights reserved.

Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the Mayer Brown Practices). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.