Eldred v. Ashcroft amicus brief
The brief was filed on behalf of Hal Roach Studios and its Chairman, Michael Agee. Hal Roach Studios is one of the leading restorers and proprietors of silent films, including the pre-1931 Laurel and Hardy archive. Amicus briefs typically address matters on which the amici (or friends of the court) have special expertise or knowledge, not likely to be covered in the main briefs. Film preservation was just such an issue. Extending the terms of dead copyright holders is hardly likely to “promote the progress” of culture by encouraging them to create new works, however a serious argument had been made that it would give the holders of copyrights over old films the incentive to move their works onto new media, thus promoting accessibility even if not creativity. The amicus brief’s exhaustive survey of the scholarly archival literature and the actual facts and statistics of preservation showed that the opposite was the case. For the overwhelming majority of films, term extension would actually impede preservation efforts. The amicus brief was accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2002.
In January of 2003 over two strong dissents – one of which referred explicitly to the amicus brief – a seven member majority of the Court upheld the Act. In an editorial called “The Coming of Copyright Perpetuity” the New York Times had this to say about the decision: “Artists naturally deserve to hold a property interest in their work, and so do the corporate owners of copyright. But the public has an equally strong interest in seeing copyright lapse after a time, returning works to the public domain – the great democratic seedbed of artistic creation – where they can be used without paying royalties. In effect, the Supreme Court’s decision makes it likely that we are seeing the beginning of the end of public domain and the birth of copyright perpetuity. Public domain has been a grand experiment, one that should not be allowed to die. The ability to draw freely on the entire creative output of humanity is one of the reasons we live in a time of such fruitful creative ferment.” – New York Times Editorial, Jan 16, 2003. These words could also serve as an explanation of the work of the CSPD.