Clause of the U.S. constitution allowing intellectual property protection
The
Copyright Clause
(also known as the
Intellectual Property Clause
,
Copyright and Patent Clause
, or the
Progress Clause
[1]
) describes an
enumerated power
listed in the
United States Constitution
(
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
).
The clause, which is the basis of
copyright
and
patent
laws in the United States, states that:
[2]
[the
United States Congress
shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
History
[
edit
]
On August 18, 1787, the Constitutional Convention was in the midst of a weeks-long stretch of proposals to establish what would become the enumerated powers of the
United States Congress
. Three such proposals made on that day addressed what are now lumped together under
intellectual property rights
. One, by
Charles Pinckney
was "to secure to authors exclusive rights for a limited time". The other two were made by
James Madison
, who had previously served on a committee of the Congress established under the
Articles of Confederation
which had encouraged the individual states to adopt copyright legislation. Madison proposed that the Constitution permit Congress "to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time", or, in the alternative, "to encourage, by proper premiums & Provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries".
[3]
Both proposals were referred to the
Committee of Detail
, which reported back on September 5, 1787, with a proposal containing the current language of the clause. No record exists to explain the exact choice of words selected by the Committee on Detail, whose task was essentially no more than creating a draft Constitution by arranging the proposals that had been made into the most appropriate language. On September 17, 1787, the members of the Convention unanimously agreed to the proposed language, without debate, and this language was incorporated into the Constitution.
[3]
Effect
[
edit
]
The clause was interpreted as two distinct powers: the power to secure for limited times to authors the exclusive right to their writings is the basis for
U.S. copyright law
, and the power to secure for limited times to inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries is the basis for
U.S. patent law
. Because the clause contains no language under which Congress may protect
trademarks
, those are instead protected under the
Commerce Clause
. Some terms in the clause are used in archaic meanings, potentially confusing modern readers. For example, "useful Arts" does not refer to artistic endeavors, but rather to the work of
artisans
, people skilled in a manufacturing craft; "Sciences" refers not only to fields of modern scientific inquiry but rather to all knowledge.
[4]
The Copyright Clause is "the only clause that comes with its own, built-in justification".
[5]
The
United States Supreme Court
has decided numerous cases interpreting the text.
[6]
Furthermore, the clause only permits protection of the writings of authors and the discoveries of inventors. Hence, writings may only be protected to the extent that they are original,
[7]
[
non-primary source needed
]
and "inventions" must be truly inventive and not merely obvious improvements on existing knowledge.
[8]
[
non-primary source needed
]
The term "writings of authors" appears to exclude non-human authorship such as painting by chimpanzees and computer code written by programmed computers,
[9]
[
non-primary source needed
]
but the issue has not been tested in litigation.
[
citation needed
]
Although perpetual copyrights and patents are prohibited—the language specifies "limited times"—the Supreme Court has ruled in
Eldred v. Ashcroft
(2003) that repeated extensions to the term of copyright do not constitute a perpetual copyright. In that case, the United States Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
, also known pejoratively as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act."
[10]
[
failed verification
]
[
better source needed
]
Petitioners in that case argued that successive retroactive extensions of copyright were functionally unlimited and hence violated the
limited times
language of the clause.
Justice Ginsburg
, writing for the Court, rejected this argument, reasoning that the terms provided by the Act were limited in duration and noted that Congress had a long history of granting retroactive extensions.
[
citation needed
]
See also
[
edit
]
Wikisource
has original text related to this article:
References
[
edit
]
- ^
Lessig, Lawrence
(2004).
Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity
(PDF)
(PDF ed.).
Internet Archive
. pp. 130?131. Archived from
the original
(PDF)
on October 13, 2015
. Retrieved
July 19,
2018
.
- ^
"COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS".
U.S. Constitution Annotated
. Congressional Research Service
. Retrieved
September 17,
2021
.
- ^
a
b
William F. Patry,
Copyright Law and Practice
(1994).
- ^
Ochoa, Tyler T. (2007). "Chapter 7: Copyright Duration: Theories and Practice". In Yu, Peter K. (ed.).
Intellectual Property and Information Wealth: Copyright and related rights
. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 133.
ISBN
9780275988838
.
OCLC
71427267
.
- ^
"Center for the Study of the Public Domain, Casebook Chapter Two: Intellectual Property & the Constitution"
. Duke University School of Law
. Retrieved
January 28,
2024
.
- ^
Mazumdar, Anandashankar (September 9, 2020).
"Historic Court Cases That Helped Shape Scope of Copyright Protections | Copyright"
.
The Library of Congress
.
- ^
See
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.
, 499 U.S. 349 (1991).
- ^
Graham v. John Deere Co.
, 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
- ^
See U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 313.2 (3d ed. 2017) ("The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants.").
- ^
See
A Platonic Dialogue on
Eldred v. Ashcroft
Archived
July 17, 2011, at the
Wayback Machine
.
Further reading
[
edit
]
- Fenning, Karl (1929). "The Origin of the Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution".
Journal of the Patent Office Society
.
11
: 438.
ISSN
0096-3577
.
- Michelle R Paz
- Hatch, Orrin G.; Lee, Thomas R. (2002). "To Promote the Progress Of Science: The Copyright Clause and Congress' Power to Extend Copyrights".
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology
.
16
: 1?23.
ISSN
0897-3393
.
- Ochoa, Tyler T.; Rose, Mark (2002). "The Anti-Monopoly Origins of the Patent and Copyright Clause".
Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
.
84
: 909.
ISSN
0096-3577
.
- Thomas Jefferson letters relating to Copyright Clause
|
---|
Articles
| |
---|
Amendments
| |
---|
Formation
| |
---|
Clauses
| |
---|
Interpretation
| |
---|
Signatories
| Convention President
| |
---|
New Hampshire
| |
---|
Massachusetts
| |
---|
Connecticut
| |
---|
New York
| |
---|
New Jersey
| |
---|
Pennsylvania
| |
---|
Delaware
| |
---|
Maryland
| |
---|
Virginia
| |
---|
North Carolina
| |
---|
South Carolina
| |
---|
Georgia
| |
---|
Convention Secretary
| |
---|
|
---|
Related
| |
---|
Display
and legacy
| |
---|
|
---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---|
Dormant Commerce Clause
|
- Brown v. Maryland
(1827)
- Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co.
(1829)
- Cooley v. Board of Wardens
(1852)
- Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois
(1886)
- Swift & Co. v. United States
(1905)
- George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy
(1925)
- Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc.
(1935)
- Edwards v. California
(1941)
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona
(1945)
- Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison
(1951)
- Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland
(1954)
- Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
(1959)
- National Bellas Hess v. Illinois
(1967)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.
(1970)
- Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp.
(1976)
- Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady
(1977)
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
(1977)
- City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey
(1978)
- Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland
(1978)
- Reeves, Inc. v. Stake
(1980)
- Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp.
(1981)
- Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas
(1982)
- White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers
(1983)
- South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke
(1984)
- Maine v. Taylor
(1986)
- Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc.
(1989)
- Quill Corp. v. North Dakota
(1992)
- Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt
(1992)
- Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon
(1994)
- C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown
(1994)
- West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy
(1994)
- Granholm v. Heald
(2005)
- United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority
(2007)
- Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis
(2008)
- Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne
(2015)
- South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
(2018)
- Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas
(2019)
- National Pork Producers Council v. Ross
(2023)
|
---|
Others
| |
---|
|
|
|
|
---|
Copyright Act of 1790
| |
---|
Patent Act of 1793
| |
---|
Patent infringement
case law
| |
---|
Patentability
case law
| |
---|
Copyright Act of 1831
| |
---|
Copyright Act of 1870
| |
---|
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
| |
---|
International Copyright Act of 1891
| |
---|
Copyright Act of 1909
| |
---|
Patent misuse
case law
| |
---|
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
| |
---|
Lanham Act
|
- Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.
(1982)
- San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee
(1987)
- Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc.
(1992)
- Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.
(1995)
- College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board
(1999)
- Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.
(2001)
- TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.
(2001)
- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
(2003)
- Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.
(2003)
- Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
(2014)
- POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.
(2014)
- Matal v. Tam
(2017)
- Iancu v. Brunetti
(2019)
- Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.
(2020)
|
---|
Copyright Act of 1976
|
- Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.
(1977)
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
(1984)
- Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder
(1985)
- Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises
(1985)
- Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid
(1989)
- Stewart v. Abend
(1990)
- Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
(1991)
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
(1994)
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
(1994)
- Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.
(1996)
- Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L'anza Research International Inc.
(1998)
- Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.
(1998)
- New York Times Co. v. Tasini
(2001)
- Eldred v. Ashcroft
(2003)
- MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
(2005)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick
(2010)
- Golan v. Holder
(2012)
- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
(2013)
- Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.
(2014)
- American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.
(2014)
- Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.
(2017)
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com
(2019)
- Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
(2019)
- Allen v. Cooper
(2020)
- Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
(2020)
|
---|
Other
copyright cases
| |
---|
Other
patent cases
|
- Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.
(1908)
- Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde
(1916)
- United States v. General Electric Co.
(1926)
- United States v. Univis Lens Co.
(1942)
- Altvater v. Freeman
(1943)
- Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.
(1945)
- Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.
(1948)
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.
(1950)
- Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.
(1950)
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.
(1961)
- Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.
(1964)
- Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther
(1964)
- Brulotte v. Thys Co.
(1964)
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp.
(1965)
- Graham v. John Deere Co.
(1966)
- United States v. Adams
(1966)
- Brenner v. Manson
(1966)
- Lear, Inc. v. Adkins
(1969)
- Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.
(1969)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.
(1971)
- Gottschalk v. Benson
(1972)
- United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd.
(1973)
- Dann v. Johnston
(1976)
- Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc.
(1976)
- Parker v. Flook
(1978)
- Diamond v. Chakrabarty
(1980)
- Diamond v. Diehr
(1981)
- Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.
(1989)
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc.
(1990)
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
(1996)
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.
(1997)
- Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.
(1998)
- Dickinson v. Zurko
(1999)
- Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank
(1999)
- J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
(2001)
- Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.
(2002)
- Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd.
(2005)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
(2006)
- Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.
(2006)
- LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc.
(2006)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
(2007)
- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
(2007)
- Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.
(2007)
- Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.
(2008)
- Bilski v. Kappos
(2010)
- Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.
(2011)
- Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
(2011)
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership
(2011)
- Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
(2012)
- Kappos v. Hyatt
(2012)
- Bowman v. Monsanto Co.
(2013)
- Gunn v. Minton
(2013)
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
(2013)
- FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
(2013)
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
(2014)
- Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
(2014)
- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
(2015)
- Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC
(2015)
- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
(2016)
- TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC
(2017)
- Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.
(2019)
|
---|
Other
trademark cases
| |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---|
|
Statutes
| Pre-1976
| |
---|
1970s
| |
---|
1980s
| |
---|
1990s
| |
---|
2000s
| |
---|
2010s
| |
---|
2020s
| |
---|
|
---|
Precedents
and rulings
| Supreme Court
| |
---|
Appeals courts
|
- Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc.
(2d Cir. 1964)
- Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co.
(9th Cir. 1970)
- Eltra Corp. v. Ringer
(4th Cir. 1978)
- Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates
(9th Cir. 1978)
- Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.
(7th Cir. 1983)
- Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.
(3d Cir. 1983)
- Fisher v. Dees
(9th Cir. 1986)
- Whelan v. Jaslow
(3d Cir. 1986)
- Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd.
(5th Cir. 1988)
- Rogers v. Koons
(2nd Cir. 1992)
- Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.
(2d Cir. 1992)
- American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.
(2nd Cir. 1995)
- Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.
(9th Cir. 1997)
- Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.
(2d Cir. 1998)
- Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp.
(9th Cir. 2000)
- Nunez v. Caribbean Int’l News Corp.
(1st Cir. 2000)
- A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
(9th Cir. 2001)
- Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l
(5th Cir. 2002)
- Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.
(9th Cir. 2002 / 2003)
- In re Aimster Copyright Litigation
(7th Cir. 2003)
- NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Institute
(2d Cir. 2004)
- BMG Music v. Gonzalez
(7th Cir. 2005)
- Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.
(2nd Cir. 2006)
- Blanch v. Koons
(2nd Cir. 2006)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
(9th Cir. 2006)
- Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.
(2nd Cir. 2008)
- Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.
(9th Cir. 2010)
- Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha
(2d Cir. 2011)
- Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc.
(9th Cir. 2012)
- Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
(2d Cir. 2012)
- Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc
(9th Cir. 2013)
- Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.
(2d Cir. 2015)
- Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
(9th Cir. 2015)
- Naruto v. Slater
(9th Cir. 2018)
|
---|
Lower courts
| |
---|
|
---|
|