The supreme court has ruled in Golan v. Holder that works that enter the public domain may be pushed back under the cover of copyright protection. (source)
This is an absolute abomination. No surprise that our “wise latina” on the Court went with the majority.
By Email
By RSS Feed
Sexual IntelligenceUnderdog BlogMeeting the Sin LawsTTABlogSeattle Trademark LawyerTrademark BlogMedia LawLaw of the LandDillsnap CogitationsAbove the LawAdams Drafting Spam NotesLas Vegas Trademark AttorneyWindyPunditNobody's BusinessSimple JusticeBuild a Solo PracticeNew York Personal Injury Law BlogPope HatTatiana Von TauberCitizen Media ProjectTech & Marketing BlogWhat About Clients?A Public DefenderDefending PeopleLikelihood of ConfusionContiFazzDefend My DomainDispatches From the Culture WarsSiouxsie LawMockler Family LawCrime & FederalismThe SpearheadNot GuiltyIn Mala FideShit!!! Planet!!!
The Legal Satyricon 
Way to add a tinge of racism to the post. Man, this blog has been downhill for awhile.
Where do you see “racism” in the post?
Apparently, merely mentioning her race, even using a quote she herself made, is racist in an of itself.
Clint is an idiot.
So can congress push something back under copyright, or does this just grant the enforcement of foreign copyrights?
And Clint, the ‘Wise Latina” bit isn’t racist, she advertised herself that way. She also advertised herself as a liberal, the group who is traditionally supposed to lookout for the commons & the little guy.
Marc,
Why “no surprise” that Sotomayor went along with the majority? I thought it WAS a surprise, and more so that Ginsburg joined her…
See Castle Rock Entertainment Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, 150 F.3d 132 (2nd Cir. 1998). That was a case where Sotomayor took a huge shit on fair use.
I’m puzzled by the implications of this decision. Suppose I have used a piece of art in my corporate logo for the last ten years. This art was out of copyright under US law, but now it suddenly has copyright restored. Do I suddenly owe royalties or a fee for having used it for 10 years? What if I trademarked the logo containing it? Seems like a submarine patent only worse, unless I am missing something here.
I’m starting to wonder what the difference is between a perpetual copyright and one that get conveniently extended whenever it comes close to becoming public domain. I fail to see how 28 years after the death of the author is insufficient, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”