Opinion ID: 3054073
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Constitutionality of Twin Books

Text: Beseder argues, in the alternative, that application of Twin Books to this case violates the Constitution and Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), by creating a limitless term of U.S. Copyright for works published abroad. The Copyright SOCIETE CIVILE SUCCESSION v. RENOIR 16129 and Patent Clause of the Constitution states: “Congress shall have Power . . . [t]o promote the Progress of Science . . . by securing [to Authors] for limited Times . . . the exclusive Right to their . . . Writings.” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. In Eldred, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act because the extended term was finite and definable. 537 U.S. at 199-200 (a “limited Tim[e]” means “confine[d] with certain bounds,” “restrain[ed],” or “circumscribe[d]”). [12] Beseder argues, citing Nimmer on Copyright, that under the Twin Books rationale, a newly discovered ancient Greek work, “published obviously without notice a millennia ago,” would not be in the public domain and would still be eligible for copyright protection, thus creating a limitless copyright term. See 1-4 Nimmer on Copyright § 4.01[C][1], at 4-10.1. While an ancient work may be protected today under the ruling of Twin Books, the term is not limitless. Instead, the copyright term for a newly discovered ancient work that is not in the public domain or copyrighted would be limited to a finite term of seventy years after the death of the last author, §§ 303(a), 302(a), (b), or December 31, 2047, whichever is later, § 303(a); see also 1-4 Nimmer on Copyright § 4.01[C][1], at 4-10.1 n.35.23; 3-9 Nimmer on Copyright § 9.09[A], at 9-133. Thus, Twin Books does not conflict with either the Copyright and Patent Clause of the Constitution or Eldred.