SHOULD MICKEY BE FREE AT AGE 75?; DISNEY'S 95-YEAR 'CUSTODY' DISPUTED

WASHINGTON - Mickey Mouse and thousands of other Hollywoodcreations were in the spotlight Wednesday as the Supreme Court hearda challenge to a law passed by Congress extending copyrights for 20years.

If the law were overturned, only the original Mickey Mouse, asportrayed in the Disney film "Steamboat Willie," would enter thepublic domain on Jan. 1, 2004 - more than 75 years after his 1928debut. More modern Mickeys are protected by other Disney copyrightsand trademarks.

The 1998 law keeps the original Mickey in Disney's domain untilJan.1, 2024.

Congress abused its constitutional power to set limits when itpassed the 1998 law that extended copyrights already on the books,as well as future copyrights, Stanford University law professorLawrence Lessig told the court.

"Unless this court draws a line about this extension, there willbe no limit," said Lessig, who argued the case for a coalition offree-speech advocates.

Copyrights are now retained by creators for their lifetime plus70 years. Corporations can hold rights for 95 years.

"These decisions are quintessential legislative judgments," saidU.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who defended Congress' rightto adjust copyright laws.

Olson also noted that the 1998 law was passed, in part, to keepU.S. copyrights on a par with those in Europe, which had alreadybeen extended by 20 years.

"Why have there been no challenges until now?" asked ChiefJustice William Rehnquist, who noted that Congress also extendedcopyrights in 1831, 1909 and 1976. He and other justices expressedconcern that overthrowing the 1998 law could also void thoseprevious moves, resulting in copyright chaos.

Lessig said the challenge is necessary now because the Internet -something the writers of the Constitution could not have foreseen -had greatly increased the opportunity for free access toinformation.

Rehnquist countered that the Constitution's framers also couldnot have foreseen steamboats or railroads, but nevertheless createdbasic rules for commerce.

"I can find a lot of fault with what Congress did," said JusticeSandra Day O'Connor. "This flies directly in the face of what theframers of the Constitution had in mind. But is itunconstitutional?"

Critics of the 1998 act branded it the "Mickey Mouse CopyrightLaw" and contended it was passed because of heavy lobbying by Disneyand other large entertainment companies.

The extension also applies to an undetermined number of othercreative works.

"The word 'limit' has no meaning. It's a joke," Lessig said afterthe hearing. "This law is stopping people from taking parts of theirculture and sharing them with others."

Lessig said he and other opponents of the 1998 law have noopinion on what should be the proper length of a copyright, butoppose retroactively extending copyrights for works whose creatorshad no expectation of the additional protection. He argued thatchanges in the copyright law should cover only works created after anew law is passed.

"The 20-year extension is reasonable and was fully considered byCongress," Rep. Mary Bono, R-Palm Springs, said after the hearing.Her late husband, Sonny, a congressman and entertainer, helped todevelop the 1998 law.

"We held hearings and heard from all interested parties,including some of the same people who opposed us in court today,"Bono said. "Sonny was an artist, and he knew what copyrightprotections meant to the creative community. I was so proud whenthey put his name on the bill because he was the one who reallychampioned this law."

The court is expected to issue its decision in early spring.