Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

Clause  led  Congress  to  include  additional  protections  for
“reliance  parties”—those  who  had,  before  the  URAA’s 
enactment,  used  or  acquired  a  foreign  work  then  in  the
public  domain.  See  §104A(h)(3)–(4).14    Reliance  parties 
may continue to exploit a restored work until the owner of 
the  restored  copyright  gives  notice  of  intent  to  enforce—
either by filing with the U. S. Copyright Office within two 
years  of  restoration,  or  by  actually  notifying  the  reliance 
party.  §104A(c),  (d)(2)(A)(i),  and  (B)(i).    After  that,  reli-
ance  parties  may  continue  to  exploit  existing  copies  for  a
grace  period  of  one  year.    §104A(d)(2)(A)(ii),  and  (B)(ii).
Finally, anyone who, before the URAA’s enactment, creat-
ed  a  “derivative  work”  based  on  a  restored  work  may
indefinitely  exploit  the  derivation  upon  payment  to  the
copyright holder of “reasonable compensation,” to be set by 
a district judge if the parties cannot agree.  §104A(d)(3). 

B 
In  2001,  petitioners  filed  this  lawsuit  challenging  §514.
They  maintain  that  Congress,  when  it  passed  the  URAA,
exceeded  its  authority  under  the  Copyright  Clause  and 
transgressed First Amendment limitations.15  The District 

—————— 

14 A reliance party must have used the work in a manner that would 
constitute  infringement  had  a  valid  copyright  been  in  effect.  See 
§104A(h)(4)(A).    After  restoration,  the  reliance  party  is  limited  to  her 
previous  uses.  A  performer  of  a  restored  work,  for  example,  cannot,
post-restoration,  venture  to  sell  copies  of  the  script.    See  3  Nimmer 
§9A.04[C][1][a], at 9A–45 to 9A–46. 

15 Petitioners’  complaint  also  challenged  the  constitutionality  of  the 
Copyright Term Extension Act, 112 Stat. 2827, which added 20 years to
the duration of existing and future copyrights.  After this Court rejected 
a  similar  challenge  in  Eldred  v.  Ashcroft,  537  U. S.  186  (2003),  the 
District  Court  dismissed  this  portion  of  petitioners’  suit  on  the  plead-
ings,  Golan  v.  Ashcroft,  310  F. Supp.  2d  1215  (D.  Colo.  2004).    The 
Tenth  Circuit affirmed,  Golan  v.  Gonzales,  501  F. 3d  1179  (2007),  and
petitioners  do  not  attempt  to  revive  that  claim  in  this  Court,  Pet.  for
Cert.  7,  n. 2.  Neither  have  petitioners  challenged  the  District  Court’s