Photo Credit: Sasun Bughdaryan
A petition to bring awareness to the inaccuracies of copyright law in the American Law Institute’s Copyright Restatement has over 500 signatures.
In opposition to the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Copyright Restatement and to highlight its “significant inaccuracies, omissions, and mischaracterizations of copyright law,” the Copyright Restatement Transparency Project (CRTP) has announced that its petition to raise awareness has surpassed 500 signatures.
The CRTP was formed by members of the copyright and creative communities, including individuals and organizations that participated in the Copyright Restatement for years but ultimately resigned from the project in its final stages. Those who resigned reportedly did so “when it became clear that the ALI would not address repeated concerns from the participants, professional organizations, prominent law professors and copyright experts, the U.S. Copyright Office, and Congress.”
“The overwhelming response to the petition shows that there is widespread recognition that the Restatement is flawed and would be harmful if relied upon by courts and practitioners,” reads a statement from the CRTP. “While the problems that plagued the Restatement project for years have been swept under the rug by the ALI, stakeholders have taken notice, and even lawmakers have now demanded answers in a letter to ALI leadership.”
“It’s time that the ALI acknowledge the controversial nature of the Copyright Restatement that led to the mass resignations that occurred at the project’s conclusion and admit that the final product does not reflect established legal precedent,” the CTRP’s statement continues.
“When I was asked to be an Advisor to the ALI Restatement of the Law Copyright Project, I was honored. However, my respect for the ALI began to be undermined at the first meeting of the Advisors and Reporters when I saw that participants’ concerns about biases and mischaracterizations of law were pushed aside,” said Janet Fries, Counsel, Lutzker & Lutzker, Advisor to the Copyright Restatement Project.
“Over the years, many suggested revisions and insightful comments made by Advisors were routinely ignored. The statutory language was distorted as new standards and interpretations were introduced as ‘black letter law.’ A decade later, not wishing to be associated with the final revision, I joined a group of Advisors who resigned and requested that our names be removed. This restatement is a work that cannot be relied upon as an authoritative source of copyright law.”
Ashley Irwin, President of the Society of Composers & Lyricists, added: “For composers and songwriters whose livelihoods depend on strong and stable copyright protections, inaccuracies and mischaracterizations of the law are not academic—they have real-world consequences. The ALI’s Restatement should not be used to cloud or alter the meaning of the federal statute Congress carefully enacted, that has been serving the needs of music creators for decades.”
“The American Law Institute’s Restatement of Copyright has generated serious concerns among creators, practitioners, policymakers, academics, and many others because of its significant inaccuracies, omissions, and mischaracterizations of copyright law,” said Keith Kupferschmid, President & CEO, Copyright Alliance, Liaison to the Copyright Restatement Project.
“Rather than neutrally restating established precedent, the Restatement advanced controversial legal interpretations, policy preferences, and minority views. In doing so, it undermines the carefully calibrated balance that Congress established in the Copyright Act between protecting creators and promoting public access to copyrighted works.
The Restatement will foster confusion and weaken the incentives that copyright law is designed to provide to authors, artists, musicians, and other creators. We strongly urge that policymakers, practitioners, and judges approach the Restatement with a tremendous amount of caution and rely first on the Copyright Act’s text, binding precedent, and the constitutional purpose of copyright itself.”
