And in other copyright news … some bad news

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.

8 Responses to And in other copyright news … some bad news

  1. Clint says:

    Way to add a tinge of racism to the post. Man, this blog has been downhill for awhile.

  2. madrocketscientist says:

    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.

  3. roryhewitt says:

    Marc,

    Why “no surprise” that Sotomayor went along with the majority? I thought it WAS a surprise, and more so that Ginsburg joined her…

  4. charles platt says:

    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.

  5. Frederick Michael Carl Frederickson says:

    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.”

%d bloggers like this: