Difference between revisions of "Golan v. Gonzales"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In ''Golan v. Gonzales'', 501 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2007), the Tenth Circuit confirmed "the bedrock principle of [[copyright]] law that works in the [[public domain]] [must] remain there," and not even [[Congress]] or an international [[treaty]] can remove them from the public domain. ''Id.'' at 1187. | In ''Golan v. Gonzales'', 501 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2007), the Tenth Circuit confirmed "the bedrock principle of [[copyright]] law that works in the [[public domain]] [must] remain there," and not even [[Congress]] or an international [[treaty]] can remove them from the public domain. ''Id.'' at 1187. | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Copyright]] |
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Circuit Cases]] |
[[Category:Tenth Circuit]] | [[Category:Tenth Circuit]] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:32, July 13, 2016
In Golan v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2007), the Tenth Circuit confirmed "the bedrock principle of copyright law that works in the public domain [must] remain there," and not even Congress or an international treaty can remove them from the public domain. Id. at 1187.