Also known as: promote Progress of Science · Progress Clause · Copyright Clause · Patent Clause · IP Clause
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional directive authorizing Congress to grant authors and inventors limited exclusive rights in their writings and discoveries as a means to advance knowledge and innovation. The directive frames the grant of copyright and patent monopolies as a public-purpose mechanism rather than a private reward.
Patricia Patel invents a new battery technology and files for a patent. Congress passes legislation extending the patent term by five years for all inventors who commercialize their work within three years. The extension supplies Patel with additional years of exclusivity that allow her to recoup development costs and bring the battery to market.
Portia Price records television programs on her home VCR for later viewing. Studios sue the manufacturer claiming the device enables widespread copying. The Court holds that the technology does not undermine the constitutional goal because it expands public access to existing works while leaving room for new creative production.
In 1976, Universal City Studios, Inc., and Walt Disney Productions, owners of copyrights in motion pictures and other audiovisual works, commenced a copyright infringement action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Sony Corporation of America and related entities that manufacture and sell Betamax video tape recorders. The Betamax consists of a tuner that receives signals from the public airwaves, a recorder that places those signals on magnetic tape, and an adapter that converts the signals for playback on a television set. It includes a timer for unattended recording, a pause button to omit commercials, and a fast-forward control. Surveys of several hundred Betamax owners conducted by both parties in 1978 showed that the primary use for most owners was time-shifting, recording a program for single later viewing and then erasing it. Sony's survey indicated that over 80 percent of interviewees watched at least as much regular television as before owning a Betamax. Seven point three percent of use was to record sports events whose professional leagues had no objection to home recording, and representatives of religious and educational broadcasters also testified they had no objection. After a lengthy trial, the District Court in 1979 denied all relief to the respondents, finding that time-shifting was fair use, that Sony had no direct involvement with any infringing activity, and that the Betamax was a staple article of commerce capable of substantial noninfringing uses. The court noted Sony's instruction booklet warned that unauthorized recording of copyrighted material may violate copyright laws. The Ninth Circuit in 1981 reversed the District Court's judgment on the copyright claim, holding petitioners liable for contributory infringement without setting aside any findings of fact, and remanded for consideration of damages or a continuing royalty. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1982, ordered reargument in 1983, and issued its decision in January 1984.
View casePhilip Powell prepares a biography that quotes several unpublished letters of a former president. A magazine publishes a short excerpt without permission. The Court rules that the taking exceeds fair use because it undercuts the author's right to control first publication and thereby weakens the incentive structure the Clause creates.
In February 1977, shortly after leaving the White House, former President Gerald R. Ford contracted with Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., and Reader's Digest Association, Inc., to publish his memoirs. The agreement provided Harper & Row and Reader's Digest the exclusive right to license prepublication excerpts known as first serial rights. Harper & Row paid Ford $25,000 upon signing and another $25,000 upon delivery of the manuscript, while the Government supplied $25,000 for researchers plus staff and access to White House files and tapes. The completed 460-page manuscript included roughly 200 pages on Ford's decision to pardon Richard Nixon. In late 1978, Victor Navasky, editor of The Nation, learned from an undisclosed source that the manuscript was in California. The source, described as a former Ford aide, supplied a copy to The Nation for $5,000. Navasky prepared a 2,250-word article titled "The Ford Memoirs — Behind the Nixon Pardon" that appeared in the April 3, 1979, issue. The article contained approximately 300 words of verbatim quotations from the manuscript, focused on the Nixon pardon chapters, and was published on the eve of the scheduled Time magazine serialization. Harper & Row had separately licensed first serial rights to Time magazine for $25,000, with $12,500 paid in advance and the balance due upon publication of a 7,500-word excerpt timed for one week before the hardcover book release. Time retained the right to renegotiate the second payment if any material appeared earlier. After The Nation article ran, Time canceled the remaining payment and the serialization. Harper & Row and Reader's Digest then sued Nation Enterprises in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging copyright infringement among other claims. Following a six-day bench trial, the district court found that the Ford manuscript was protected by copyright at the time of The Nation's publication and that the use of the material was not fair use. The court awarded Harper & Row $12,500 in actual damages. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that The Nation's use qualified as fair use. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View casePilar Pena compiles a new directory by copying names and numbers from an existing rural telephone book. The original compiler sues for infringement. The Court holds that the copied facts are not protected because copyright protects only original expression, thereby ensuring later compilers can build on raw information to advance scientific progress.
Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., is a certified public utility that provides telephone service to several communities in northwest Kansas. As a condition of its monopoly franchise, state regulation requires Rural to issue an updated telephone directory annually. Rural's directory consists of white pages listing subscribers' names, towns, and telephone numbers in alphabetical order, along with yellow pages featuring classified advertisements. Feist Publications, Inc., specializes in area-wide telephone directories covering larger geographical ranges than typical local directories. Feist's 1983 directory encompasses eleven telephone service areas in fifteen counties and contains 46,878 white pages listings. To compile its directory, Feist approached each of the eleven telephone companies operating in northwest Kansas and offered to pay for the right to use their white pages listings. Of the eleven companies, only Rural refused to license its listings. Feist then copied 1,309 listings from Rural's 1982-1983 white pages after first removing several thousand outside its geographic range and verifying the remaining data through additional investigation that added street addresses to many entries. Four of the copied listings were fictitious entries that Rural had inserted to detect copying. Rural sued Feist for copyright infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The district court granted summary judgment to Rural. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the copyright in Rural's directory protects the names, towns, and telephone numbers copied by Feist.
View casePaula Pierce records a rap parody of a popular ballad. The original copyright owner refuses permission and sues. The Court finds the parody qualifies as fair use because the new work comments on the original and adds creative expression that ultimately enriches the store of knowledge the Clause seeks to promote.
In 1964, Roy Orbison and William Dees wrote a rock ballad called "Oh, Pretty Woman" and assigned their rights in it to respondent Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Acuff-Rose registered the song for copyright protection. Petitioners Luther R. Campbell, Christopher Wongwon, Mark Ross, and David Hobbs, collectively known as 2 Live Crew, wrote a song in 1989 entitled "Pretty Woman," which Campbell described in an affidavit as intended through comical lyrics to satirize the original work. On July 5, 1989, 2 Live Crew's manager informed Acuff-Rose that the group had written a parody of the song, that they would afford all credit for ownership and authorship to Acuff-Rose, Dees, and Orbison, and that they were willing to pay a fee for the use. Enclosed with the letter were a copy of the lyrics and a recording of 2 Live Crew's song. Acuff-Rose's agent refused permission. In June or July 1989, 2 Live Crew released records, cassette tapes, and compact discs of "Pretty Woman" in a collection of songs entitled "As Clean As They Wanna Be." The albums and compact discs identify the authors of "Pretty Woman" as Orbison and Dees and its publisher as Acuff-Rose. Almost a year later, after nearly a quarter of a million copies of the recording had been sold, Acuff-Rose sued 2 Live Crew and its record company, Luke Skyywalker Records, for copyright infringement. The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether 2 Live Crew's commercial parody could be a fair use.
View casePriya Prasad's news service rewrites stories gathered by a competitor and sells them to its own subscribers. The competitor sues claiming misappropriation. The Court rejects a property right in the news itself because granting exclusive control over factual reports would contradict the Clause's aim of disseminating knowledge to the public.
The Associated Press is a cooperative organization incorporated under New York law. Its members are proprietors or representatives of about 950 daily newspapers. It gathers news worldwide through its own correspondents, exchanges with members, and other means at an annual cost of approximately $3,500,000 assessed upon the members. Each member agrees that news received through the service is for exclusive publication in a designated newspaper and place. No other use is permitted. No member shall furnish the news in advance of publication to any non-member. Each member also supplies its local news exclusively to the Associated Press. International News Service is a New Jersey corporation engaged in gathering and selling news to approximately 400 subscribing newspapers under contracts. Its annual operating cost exceeds $2,000,000. The two organizations compete directly in the distribution of news throughout the United States. The newspapers they serve likewise compete in their respective districts. International News Service obtained Associated Press news by copying from bulletin boards and early editions of newspapers published by Associated Press members on the East Coast. It transmitted the material by telegraph to its own western subscribers for publication. It sometimes rewrote the dispatches while using the same facts. It also obtained news before publication by bribing employees of Associated Press member newspapers and by inducing members to violate the by-laws. The bill was filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction against bribing employees and inducing by-law violations. It declined to enjoin the copying from bulletins and early editions. The Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the existing injunction. On the complainant's appeal, it modified the decree to add an injunction against bodily taking of the news until its commercial value as news had passed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseThe Clause states a purpose rather than an enforceable evidentiary test. Courts treat the grant of limited exclusive rights as the constitutionally prescribed means to achieve progress and do not demand proof that a particular statute will produce more works.
Supporting sources
The Clause authorizes Congress to secure rights for limited times. Extensions of existing terms have been upheld because the constitutional language does not expressly require fresh consideration or new authorship as a condition of extension.
Supporting sources
Copyright protects only original expression. The Clause's goal of promoting progress is served by allowing later authors to use facts and ideas freely while protecting the particular expression chosen by the first author.
Supporting sources