While the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) dominated last week’s headlines, another damaging intellectualproperty decision actually passed with relatively little outcry.
Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld its Golan v. Holder ruling that art previously in the public domain could be re-copyrighted. Works already removed from the public domain include those by Alfred Hitchcock, Pablo Picasso and Sergei Prokofiev.
This ruling essentially discards the idea of a public domain, with copyrights able to be extended with seemingly no end point where a work belongs to everyone.
The U.S. Copyright Officeestimates that millions of works would now be eligible for copyright restoration. Google, which opposed the law, said that renewedcopyrights would affect more thana million books already scannedand available through the Google Books Library Project, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Libraries and archives that serve to provide educational resources, such as the USF Library, could also be greatly hindered by this ruling if they offer public domain works. Many libraries are already suffering budget cuts as is, and they might not be able to pay for the cost of newly copyrighted resources.
Orchestras are anotherexample of who would be adverselyaffected by this ruling. Leadplaintiff Lawrenc Golan said conductors like himself could now have to pay $800 in royalties to perform Prokofiev’s “Peter and the Wolf,” according to the Wall Street Journal, which would prevent many smaller orchestras from playing it.
This is the essential problem of copyright laws like the one upheld by Golan v. Holder. In theiroverreaching attempts to protect an artist’s creative vision, they greatly reduces the number of those who will be able to see or hear it.
Copyrights already have a long life of 70 years after theartist’s death before they enter thepublic domain. Allowing works to be removed from the pubic domain lets copyright owners continueputting a literal price on priceless works meant for all of humanity.
Last week’s Martin Luther King Jr. Day provided an unfortunate example of this. If anyonewanted to celebrate the holiday bywatching his historic “I Have a Dream” speech, it would cost $10 to do so legally. According to The Atlantic, King’s estate and the British record company EMI control the copyright of the speech until 2038.
If any work should seemingly belong to the world, it would be King’s “I Have a Dream” speech – a plea for universal community. Yet a copyright exists for it after more than two decades, and now the copyright could easily be renewed past its current expiration date.
It would already be unbelievable enough for Buster Keaton if he knew his movies would be available one day on an online database, yet it’s likely he’d find it harder to believe that decades later, copyright owners and companies would be fighting for the rights to their creations. At some point, works of art are timeless enough that they should be accessible to everyone, and Golan v. Holder’s ruling rejects that idea.
Jimmy Geurts is a senior majoring in mass communications.