- Elton John blasts Russia’s anti-gay laws during Moscow concert
- U.N.: Afghanistan slow to enforce law protecting women
- Heart cancels SeaWorld concert after ‘Blackfish’ documentary
- South Carolina sheriff refuses to lower American flag for Nelson Mandela
- South Africans hold day of prayer for Nelson Mandela
- Mandela not on life support in final hours, friend says
- Ukraine protesters topple, decapitate Lenin statue in Kiev
- Kim Jong-un’s uncle removed from North Korean state documentary
- Thailand crisis deepens as opposition quits Parliament
- Campbell Soup apologizes for SpaghettiOs’ Pearl Harbor tweet
Chief Justice Roberts invokes Hendrix at Woodstock
The high court’s generational divide was on display Wednesday as the justices heard arguments about whether Congress acted properly in extending U.S. copyright protection to millions of works by foreign artists and authors that had been in the public domain _ meaning they could be performed and used in other ways without paying royalties.
Community orchestras, academics and others who rely on uncopyrighted works are challenging a 1994 law that made copyrights available to the foreign works. Google, with its You Tube and digital art and library projects that depend on works in the public domain, is backing the challenge. Composers, authors, songwriters, photographers and others who depend on copyright protection are urging the court to uphold the law.
Copland and Hendrix were Americans, but justices used them to illustrate differing views of the case.
A copyright allows artists, or the copyright holder such as a deceased artist’s estate, a fixed period of time in which they can permit or deny others the right to use or reproduce their work or demand a royalty payment for doing so.
Chief Justice John Roberts was 14 years old when Hendrix performed his “distinctive rendition” of the “Star Spangled Banner” at the Woodstock music festival. Roberts, now 56, voiced concern that Hendrix’s freedom of expression could have been compromised under the government’s argument.
“Assuming the national anthem is suddenly entitled to copyright protection that it wasn’t before, he can’t do that, right?” Roberts said.
The court ruled in 2003 that Congress may extend the life of a copyright, but it has never said whether published works lacking a copyright could later be protected. The case argued Wednesday concerns a 1994 law that was intended to bring the United States in line with an international agreement.
By Brahma Chellaney
Beijing's creeping aggression signals a challenge to U.S. presence in the Asian Pacific
- CURL: Obama tells a whopper on IRS scandal
- CHELLANEY: China's game of chicken
- Sen. Rand Paul pushes 'economic freedom zones' for Detroit
- Obamas call to close Vatican embassy is 'slap in the face' to Roman Catholics
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- Russian lawmaker wants to outlaw U.S. dollar, calls it a Ponzi scheme
- 'Dude, I'm dreading that I will have to go': Czech prime minister on Mandela funeral
- New Internet security challenge arises for cybercops
- Wife of Obama aide found dead in burning car in home's garage
- Congress creates a legislative fortress for military sex-assault policy
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Al Maurer provides a common sense, conservatarian, Constitutional conservative perspective from the battleground state of Colorado
Film Reviews and Articles by Kevin Williams
"Critical thinking is thinking about your thinking while you're thinking in order to make your thinking better." - Dr. Richard Paul
Go beyond tourism's "top 10" bus tour destinations with Susan McKee as she explores the varied history, culture, food, and gardens, of the world.
Let it snow
White House pets gone wild!