In Kahle v. Ashcroft, Stanford University's Center for the Internet and Society (CIS) has filed test-case litigation seeking to overturn the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) as unconstitutional because it protects copyright of what the CIS inaccurately describes as 'orphan' works (old works for which the copyright holder is not readily ascertainable). The CIS contends the CTEA does harm because it prevents archivist organizations from preserving old works (e.g. movies, whose celluloid is decaying) and making them freely available to the public.
While SFWA supports the goal of preserving copyrighted works, SFWA disagrees with the litigation as an excessive and very harmful solution to problems that in our view arise infrequently and could be solved in many other ways, such as minor changes to laws relating to Work made For Hire (WFH), bankruptcy, or probate, providing clarification around the permissible boundaries of derivative works (which appears in fact to be the CIS's true goal), or other measures. SFWA's letter, an important policy statement on behalf of all artistic creators, lays out why we think the Kahle litigation is wrong on the law; why overturning the CTEA would do harm, not good; and how other changes could advance archivist preservation and the CIS's other goals. It's the first statement we know of on behalf of the creative community.
We urge you to read our letter in its entirety, and to follow the indicated links to the CIS's Kahle litigation.