The Court upheld the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, ruling Congress may extend existing copyright terms and that the extension does not violate the First Amendment.
Eric Eldred ran a website called Eldritch Press, where he posted public domain works of literature โ books whose copyrights had expired โ in free digital form. He was preparing to add a new batch of works from the 1920s when Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998. The law added 20 years to all existing and future copyrights: new works now received protection for the author's life plus 70 years, and works already under copyright were extended by another 20 years. Works Eldred had been counting on entering the public domain โ including early Disney films and Robert Frost poems โ stayed locked up for two more decades. The law was called the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" by critics, because the Walt Disney Company had been among its most aggressive lobbyists. Mickey Mouse cartoons from 1928 were scheduled to enter the public domain shortly before the extension passed. Eldred, along with other publishers and academics, sued the government arguing that the retroactive extension of existing copyrights violated both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment. The Copyright Clause grants Congress the power to give authors exclusive rights for "limited Times." Eldred's legal team, led by Lawrence Lessig, argued that "limited" was not being honored when Congress simply kept extending copyrights retroactively โ effectively making them permanent. They also argued that extending copyrights on existing works served no incentive purpose, because those works had already been created, and that the First Amendment protects the free flow of information that the public domain enables.
Does the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which added 20 years to existing and future copyrights, exceed Congress's power under the Copyright Clause or violate the First Amendment?
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was constitutional. Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion. The Court held that the Copyright Clause's "limited times" requirement is satisfied as long as terms are finite โ Congress has wide latitude to extend copyright terms, even retroactively, so long as they eventually end. The Court also rejected the First Amendment challenge, holding that copyright's built-in safeguards (the idea/expression dichotomy and fair use) addressed the free speech concerns. The majority gave Congress substantial deference, noting that Congress had been extending copyright terms since 1831, and that the Court had never struck down an extension. The opinion acknowledged that the challengers had raised serious policy arguments, but held that such policy choices are for Congress to make. Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, each writing separately. Stevens argued the retroactive extension was unconstitutional on Copyright Clause grounds; Breyer provided an empirical analysis showing that life-plus-70 terms produced no meaningful incentive benefits while imposing real social costs.
How the justices lined up in this decision.
The decision upheld the retroactive 20-year extension of copyright protection, delaying the entry of many works into the public domain and preserving exclusive rights for authors and heirs for a longer period; this affects publishers, educators, archivists, digital creators, and the public's access to older works.