Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

had  not  definitively  rejected  “retroactive”  protection  for
preexisting  foreign  works;  instead  it  had  punted  on  this
issue  of  Berne’s  implementation,  deferring  consideration 
until  “a  more  thorough  examination  of  Constitutional,
commercial,  and  consumer  considerations  is  possible.”
BCIA House Report, at 51, 52.3 

The  minimalist  approach  essayed  by  the  United  States
did not sit well with other Berne members.4  While negoti-
—————— 

3 See  also  S. Rep.  No.  103–412,  p.  225  (1994)  (“While  the  United
States  declared  its  compliance  with  the  Berne  Convention  in  1989,  it
never  addressed  or  enacted  legislation  to  implement  Article  18  of
the Convention.”); Memorandum from Chris Schroeder, Counselor to the
Assistant  Attorney  General,  Office  of  Legal  Counsel,  Dept.  of  Justice 
(DOJ),  to  Ira  S.  Shapiro,  General  Counsel,  Office  of  the  U. S.  Trade 
Representative (July 29, 1994), in W. Patry, Copyright and the GATT, 
p.  C–15  (1995)  (“At  the  time  Congress  was  debating  the  BCIA,  it
reserved  the  issue  of  removing  works  from  the  public  domain.”);  Gen-
eral  Agreement  on  Tariffs  and  Trade  (GATT):  Intellectual  Property
Provisions,  Joint  Hearing  before  the  Subcommittee  on  Intellectual
Property  and  Judicial  Administration  of  the  House  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary  and  the  Subcommittee  on  Patents,  Copyrights  and  Trade-
marks  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  103d  Cong.,  2d
Sess., p. 120 (1994) (URAA Joint Hearing) (app. to statement of Bruce 
A.  Lehman,  Assistant  Secretary  of  Commerce  and  Commissioner  of
Patents and Trademarks (Commerce Dept.)) (“When the United States
adhered to the Berne Convention, Congress . . . acknowledged that the 
possibility  of  restoring  copyright  protection  for  foreign  works  that  had
fallen into the public domain in the United States for failure to comply
with formalities was an issue that merited further discussion.”). 

4 The  dissent  implicitly  agrees  that,  whatever  tentative  conclusion 
Congress  reached  in  1988,  Article  18  requires  the  United  States  to
“protect  the  foreign  works  at  issue,”  at  least  absent  a  special  conven- 
tion  the  United  States  did  not  here  negotiate.    Post,  at  22.  See 
also  post,  at  23  (citing  Gervais,  Golan  v.  Holder:  A  Look  at  the  Con-
straints  Imposed  by  the  Berne  Convention,  64  Vand.  L. Rev.  En  Banc 
147,  151–152  (2011));  id.,  at  152  (“[T]he  Convention  clearly  requires 
that  some  level  of  protection  be  given  to  foreign  authors  whose  works 
have  entered  the  public  domain  (other  than  by  expiration  of  previous 
copyright).”).    Accord  S.  Ricketson,  The  Berne  Convention  for  the 
Protection  of  Literary  and  Artistic  Works  1886–1986,  p.  675  (1987)