Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf
Page Number: 68

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

23 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

benefits  of  Berne  for  many  years  despite  its  failure  to 
enact a statute implementing Article 18.  But in 1994, the 
United States and other nations signed the Agreement on
Trade-Related  Aspects  of  Intellectual  Property  Rights, 
which  enabled  signatories  to  use  World  Trade  Organiza­
tion  dispute  resolution  mechanisms  to  complain  about
other members’ Berne Convention violations.  And at that 
time  the  Government,  although  it  successfully  secured
reservations protecting other special features of American 
copyright  law,  made  no  effort  to  secure  a  reservation 
permitting the United States to keep some or all restored 
works in the American public domain.  Indeed, it made no 
effort  to  do  so  despite  the  fact  that  Article  18  explicitly 
authorizes  countries  to  negotiate  exceptions  to  the  Arti­
cle’s  retroactivity  principle.    See  Art.  18(3),  ibid. 
(“The 
application  of  [the  retroactivity]  principle  shall  be  subject 
to  any  provisions  contained  in  special  conventions  to  that 
effect existing or to be concluded between countries of the 
Union”  (emphasis  added));  Gervais,  Golan  v.  Holder:  A 
Look  at  the  Constraints  Imposed  by  the  Berne  Conven­
tion, 64 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 147, 151–152 (2011); Gard,
64 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc, at 206. 

For  another  thing,  the  Convention  does  not  require
Congress  to  enact  a  statute  that  causes  so  much  damage
to  public  domain  material.  Article  18(3)  also  states  that 
“the respective countries shall determine, each in so far as 
it is concerned, the conditions of application of this princi-
ple.”  18  U.  N.  T.  S.,  at  251  (emphasis  added).    Congress
could  have  alleviated  many  of  the  costs  that  the  statute 
imposes  by,  for  example,  creating  forms  of  compulsory 
licensing, requiring “restored copyright” holders to provide 
necessary  administrative  information  as  a  condition  of 
protection,  or  insisting  upon  “reasonable  royalties.”    Cf. 
S. 2913,  110th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.  (2008)  (legislation  that 
would  have  limited  judicial  remedies  against  users  of
orphan  works);  H. R.  5889,  110th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.  (2008)