## Facts

- Congress enacted § 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), codified at 17 U.S.C. § 104A, to implement international copyright commitments, including obligations associated with the Berne Convention and TRIPS.
- Section 514 restored U.S. copyright protection to certain foreign works that lacked U.S. protection because (1) the United States did not protect works from the country of origin at the time of publication, (2) sound recordings were fixed before 1972, or (3) authors failed to satisfy U.S. statutory formalities.
- Many restored works had entered the U.S. public domain under prior law, allowing unrestricted use by conductors, performers, educators, archivists, and publishers.
- After restoration, these users faced new licensing requirements and restrictions for uses previously permitted without permission.
- The district court ultimately held § 514 failed intermediate First Amendment scrutiny; the Tenth Circuit reversed, concluding the law was narrowly tailored to important governmental objectives.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review Congress’s authority under the Copyright Clause and the statute’s compatibility with the First Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress exceeded its authority under the Copyright Clause by restoring copyright protection to foreign works that had entered the U.S. public domain.
2. Whether § 514 violates the First Amendment by restricting speech-related uses of works that were previously free for public use.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit and upheld § 514 as constitutional.
- The Court held that restoring copyright to certain foreign works did not exceed Congress’s Copyright Clause authority.
- The Court held that § 514 did not violate the First Amendment where the statute operated within the traditional contours of copyright and included statutory accommodations for prior users.
- The decision was 6–2; Justice Ginsburg authored the majority opinion; Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justice Alito; Justice Kagan did not participate.

## Legal Principles

- The Copyright Clause does not categorically bar Congress from granting copyright protection to works that were previously in the public domain, so long as protection remains for “limited Times” and other structural limits are respected.
- Congress may enact copyright legislation to implement international obligations and to secure reciprocal protection for U.S. authors abroad.
- Copyright law ordinarily accommodates First Amendment interests through the idea–expression dichotomy and the fair use doctrine; when Congress legislates within these traditional contours, additional First Amendment scrutiny is generally unwarranted.
- A content-neutral copyright restoration scheme that applies without regard to viewpoint or subject matter does not trigger strict scrutiny on that basis.
- Statutory provisions that mitigate burdens on prior users (including protections for “reliance parties”) support the constitutionality of copyright restoration measures affecting formerly public-domain works.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Congress may restore copyright protection to certain foreign works formerly in the U.S. public domain as part of implementing international copyright commitments, and that such restoration does not violate the First Amendment when traditional copyright safeguards and reliance-party accommodations remain available.


Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. 302 (2012)