Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Cogito Ergo Teneo; an intellectual property blawg

Intellectual Property Law

: Cogito Ergo Teneo; an intellectual property blawg

Copyright Law: Kahle (Again) 051407

By Sean Fowler

Kahle v. Gonzales, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-17434 (May 14, 2007):

Issue:
Renewals of copyrights have become, via the CTEA, an opt-out rather than and opt-in process.

Pertinent issues of copyright law:
1) Did SCOTUS explicitly answer the question in Eldred as to whether such a change fundamentally alters the contours of copyright law with regard to public domain?
2) Does the CTEA violate the "limited times" requirement?

Conclusions:
In upholding the constitutionality of the CTEA in Eldred, SCOTUS impliedly answered the question. An explicit answer was not necessary.

With regard to the limited times requirement, "Put differently, the outer boundary of 'limited Times' is determined by weighing the impetus provided to authors by longer terms against the benefit provided to the public by shorter terms. That weighing is left to Congress, subject to rationality review. See Eldred, 537 U.S. at 206-07 ('Congress passed the CTEA in light of demographic, economic, and technological changes, and rationally credited projections that longer terms would encourage copyright holders to invest in the restoration and public distribution of their works.' (internal citations omitted)). The Court was cognizant of the meaning of 'limited Times' when assessing the current copyright term; it simply reached a different conclusion than that desired by Plaintiffs. Future extensions may or may not survive review, but the current term is constitutional. Plaintiffs' claim was properly dismissed."

Full post as published by Cogito Ergo Teneo; an intellectual property blawg on November 06, 2007 (boomark / email).