Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf
Page Number: 28

24 

GOLAN v. HOLDER 

Opinion of the Court 

one’s expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive
to create and disseminate ideas.”  Ibid. (quoting Harper & 
Row,  471  U. S.,  at  558  (internal  quotation  marks  omit-
ted));  see  id.,  at  546  (“rights  conferred  by  copyright  are 
designed to assure contributors to the store of knowledge a 
fair return for their labors”). 

We  then  described  the  “traditional  contours”  of  copy-
right  protection,  i.e.,  the  “idea/expression  dichotomy”  and
the “fair use” defense.29  Both are recognized in our juris-
prudence as “built-in First Amendment accommodations.” 
Eldred, 537 U. S., at 219; see Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 
560  (First  Amendment  protections  are  “embodied  in  the
Copyright  Act’s  distinction  between  copyrightable  expres-
sion  and  uncopyrightable  facts  and  ideas,”  and  in  the 
“latitude for scholarship and comment” safeguarded by the
fair use defense).

The idea/expression dichotomy is codified at 17 U. S. C. 
§102(b):  “In  no  case  does  copyright  protec[t]  . . .  any  idea,
procedure,  process,  system,  method  of  operation,  concept, 
principle,  or  discovery  . . .  described,  explained,  illustrat-
ed,  or  embodied  in  [the  copyrighted]  work.”    “Due  to  this 
[idea/expression]  distinction,  every  idea,  theory,  and  fact
in  a  copyrighted  work  becomes  instantly  available  for 
public  exploitation  at  the  moment  of  publication”;  the 
author’s  expression  alone  gains  copyright  protection. 
Eldred, 537 U. S., at 219; see Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 
556  (“idea/expression  dichotomy  strike[s]  a  definitional 
balance between the First Amendment and the Copyright 
Act  by  permitting  free  communication  of  facts  while  still 
protecting  an  author’s  expression”  (internal  quotation 

—————— 

29 On the initial appeal in this case, the Tenth Circuit gave an uncon-
fined  reading  to  our  reference  in  Eldred  to  “traditional  contours  of 
copyright.”  501 F. 3d, at 1187–1196.  That reading was incorrect, as we 
here clarify.