| Abstract: | Two competing and yet complementary philosophical concepts form the foundation for the legal protection of intellectual property – ‘competing’ in that created works protected by copyright are unavailable for unrestricted use by others as a result of the economic monopoly given to the works’ owners, and ‘complementary’ in that the presumption is that works no longer protected by copyright serve as the basis for the creation of new copyrightable works. These unprotected works comprise the ‘public domain,’ which has never been affirmatively defined. In Golan v. Holder (2012), the US Supreme Court concluded that such a realm is constitutionally unimportant. This research contends, however, that the Court's decision is incorrect, that Golan, federal legislation, and international treaties threaten to bring larger and larger portions of cultural and intellectual content under the control of a property regime that does not understand the contradiction inherent in the notion of absolute property rights in intangible goods. The result is that the public domain is under tremendous pressure from those entities which have the most to gain from expanded authorial rights and from a weakened and less inclusive public domain. Citizens thus will have fewer rights to access and freely use their culture as they choose. The eventual significance of this evolution will be that further creativity and innovation will be stifled, the opposite of the intention of intellectual property law. In this article, we develop an affirmative definition of the public domain, which we believe will correct the imbalance in current intellectual property law. |
