Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf
Page Number: 56

Cite as:  565 U. S. ____ (2012) 

11 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Conductors  Guild  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  11.    And,  as  the 
Court  recognizes,  an  orchestra  that  once  could  perform 
“Peter  and  the  Wolf  . . .  free  of  charge”  will  now  have  to 
buy the “right to perform it . . . in the marketplace.”  Ante, 
at  29.  But  for  the  case  of  certain  “derivative”  works, 
§104A(d)(3),  the  “restored  copyright”  holder,  like  other 
copyright  holders,  can  charge  what  the  market  will  bear. 
If  a  school  orchestra  or  other  nonprofit  organization  can­
not afford the new charges, so be it.  They will have to do 
without—aggravating  the  already  serious  problem  of 
cultural  education  in  the  United  States.    See  Brief  for 
Conductors Guild et al. as Amici Curiae 4–5, 7–8 (describ­
ing the inability of many orchestras to pay for the rental of 
sheet music covered by “restored copyright[s]”).

freely  available 

Second,  and  at  least  as  important,  the  statute  creates
administrative  costs,  such  as  the  costs  of  determining
whether  a  work  is  the  subject  of  a  “restored  copyright,”
searching  for  a  “restored  copyright”  holder,  and  negotiat­
ing  a  fee.  Congress  has  tried  to  ease  the  administrative
burden  of  contacting  copyright  holders  and  negotiating 
prices for those whom the statute calls “reliance part[ies],” 
namely  those  who  previously  had  used  such  works  when 
they  were 
in  the  public  domain. 
§104A(h)(4).  But  Congress  has  done  nothing  to  ease  the
administrative  burden  of  securing  permission  from  copy­
right owners that is placed upon those who want to use a 
work that they did not previously use, and this is a partic­
ular problem when it comes to “orphan works”—older and
more  obscure  works  with  minimal  commercial  value  that 
have  copyright  owners  who  are  difficult  or  impossible  to
track down.  Unusually high administrative costs threaten 
to limit severely the distribution and use of those works—
works which, despite their characteristic lack of economic 
value, can prove culturally invaluable.

There are millions of such works.  For example, accord­
ing  to  European  Union  figures,  there  are  13  million  or­