Tony Falzone is the Deputy General Counsel at Pinterest, Inc.
Prior to joining Pinterest, Tony co-founded CIS’s Fair Use Project, which he led as its Executive Director from 2006 to 2012. In the course of his work at CIS, Tony represented conductor Lawrence Golan in his challenge to Congress's constitutional power to remove works from the public domain, which he argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. He also represented visual artist Shepard Fairey in copyright litigation against The Associated Press over Fairey's "Obama Hope" posters, and represented RDR Books as trial counsel in its copyright and Lanham Act dispute with J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers over the Harry Potter Lexicon. Those cases followed notable victories on behalf of the producers and distributors of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in litigation against Yoko Ono Lennon and EMI Records, on behalf of Professor Carol Shloss in her lawsuit against the Estate of James Joyce. Tony also represented a wide array of organizations as amicus curiae in federal appeals courts throughout the country, including The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Creative Commons, and the American Library Association. In addition to litigating, Tony advised dozens of documentary filmmakers, writers, artists and other content creators on fair use and other intellectual property issues.
As a Lecturer in Law, Tony has taught both lecture and clinical courses at Stanford Law School, including Fair Use in Film, Advanced Topics in Cyberlaw, and the Cyberlaw / Fair Use Clinic.
Prior to his work at Stanford, Tony was a litigation partner in the San Francisco office of Bingham McCutchen. He is a 1997 graduate of Harvard Law School, and was a law clerk to the Hon. Barry T. Moskowitz, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of California.
It was my great honor to argue for the petitioners in Golan v. Holder before the Supreme Court of the United States last week. SCOTUS blog has an excellent recap of the argument on its case page, and the Court has posted the transcript and audio recording.
Argument coverage from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post all point to Jimi Hendrix as the star of the show. Op / Ed pieces in the New York Times and the Huffington Post (here and here) do a nice job of explaining what's at stake.
UPDATE: The government's brief and our reply are now posted below. Oral argument is scheduled for October 5. Today we filed our opening brief in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging Congress's power to remove works from the public domain. For 200 years, the Copyright Act placed a huge array of works into the public domain through a combination of term limits and eligibility requirements. It created a vast reservoir of knowledge, learning and artistic creativity that millions of us use every day. Since creating the public domain in 1790, Congress amended the Copyright Act again and again to cover new types of works and lengthen copyright terms. But each time it did so, it left the public domain completely intact. It respected the fact that the public domain is public property, and cannot not be taken away. That changed in 1994, when Congress passed a law that removed a vast body of foreign works from the public domain. This body of works included symphonies by Sergei Prokofiev, Igor Stravinksy and Dmitri Shostakovich; books by C.S. Lewis, Virginia Woolf and H.G. Wells; films by Federico Fellini, Alfred Hitchcock and Jean Renoir; and artwork by M.C. Escher and Pablo Picasso. The Register of Copyrights estimated the works affected by this law "probably number in the millions." Congress took the rights in these works from the American public and handed them over to foreign authors and their heirs in the express hope that foreign countries would reciprocate by giving U.S. copyright owners new rights in works that were in the public domains of those foreign countries. In other words, Congress decided to give away the public's property -- and the important speech and expression rights that go with it -- in the hope this might put more money in the pocket of U.S. copyright owners. In the brief we filed today, we explain why the Constitution does not allow Congress to privatize the public domain and why doing so here violated the First Amendment rights of our clients and the American public. We expect the Court to hear the case this fall, with a decision to follow several months later. Read more » about UPDATED: Golan v. Holder Merits Brief Explains Why Congress Is Not Allowed To Privatize The Public Domain
The Supreme Court granted our cert. petition this morning! Both claims (Progress Clause and First Amendment) will be reviewed on the merits. SCOTUSblog calls it a "major test of copyright power." Read more » about Supreme Court grants cert. in Golan v. Holder
Details of the silliness are here. Best part of the story is the photograph of an artist setting up an easel and full array of paints in the Louvre. The French win again.
UPDATE: The Assistant Director of Communications from the de Young contacted me this morning, and explained that one of the reasons the museum adopted the no-sketch policy for this special exhibition is the volume of people who want to see it. Seems to me that implicates even more interesting questions: What is the point of the exhibition, and how important is it to provide an opportunity for a deeper and more lengthy interaction with the works on display? Read more » about (Updated) San Francisco's de Young Museum Bans Sketching In Special Exhibition, Thumbs Nose At Centuries Of Artistic Tradition
We defended a documentary filmmaker who was sued for copyright infringement for clips appearing in his documentary about Count Dante, an enigmatic, Chicago martial arts legend. Read more » about Aguiar v. Webb
We successfully defended Grammy-nominated American music producer, composer, and songwriter, Brain Transeau’s (better known by his stage name, BT), against spurious copyright infringement claims. Read more » about Vargas v. BT
We represented visual artist Shepard Fairey in connection with the AP’s claim that his iconic “Hope” poster in support of President Obama’s campaign infringes the AP’s copyrights. We represented Fairey because we believe his artistic transformation of a news photograph to convey a political message fell within the protection of the fair use doctrine and presented an important example of why fair use is essential for free expression. Read more » about Fairey v. The Associated Press
After the Estate of James Joyce refused to allow a scholar to quote Joyce in her book, we successfully defended her right under the fair use doctrine to use the quotes she needed to illustrate her scholarship. After we prevailed in the case, the Estate paid $240,000 of our client’s legal fees. Read more » about Shloss v. Estate of Joyce
After Original Talk Radio Network, the nationwide distributor of Michael Savage’s radio show, issued a takedown notice against a video critical of Savage’s portrayal of Muslims, we filed a lawsuit that convinced the company to withdraw its objections to our client’s film. Read more » about Brave New Films v. Savage
Professor Carol Shloss asked the Court to order the Estate to pay her attorneys' fees based on the unsubstantiated positions the Estate took for years, only to back down once finally challenged. Read more » about Shloss v. Estate of Joyce - Motion for Attorneys' Fees
Complaint filed on behalf of Brave New Films seeking a declaration that Greenwald's parody is protected by fair use, and compensation for wrongful takedown under DMCA section 512(f). Read more » about Brave New Films v. Viacom - Complaint
The argument issued before the Supreme Court by Anthony Falzone, Executive Director of the Fair Use Project, in Golan v. Holder is mentioned in the below BNA article by Tom P. Taylor in which Falzone explains how the government went too far when it revived copyright protections for certain foreign work.
Congress overstepped its bounds in restoring copyrights for foreign works long held in the public domain, including paintings by Picasso and films by Alfred Hitchcock, lawyers told the U.S. Supreme Court Oct. 5 (Golan v. Holder, U.S., No. 10-545, argued 10/5/11). Read more » about Should Picasso Be In Public Domain?
Executive Director of the Fair Use Project, Anthony Falzone's argument before the Supreme Court in the case of Golan v. Holder is featured in the below Daily Journal article by Robert Iafolla Read more » about Court Weighs Copyrights Of Foreign Works
Four Factors In Search Of a Question: Anchoring Fair Use to Free Expression and Social Value Read more » about Four Factors In Search Of a Question: Anchoring Fair Use to Free Expression and Social Value
The Online News Association, in conjunction with the UNC Center for Media Law & Policy, the Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society and the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, presents the Third Annual Law School for Digital Journalists, part of the Thursday Workshops at ONA’s 2012 Conference & Awards Banquet, Sept. 20-23. Read more » about ONA12 Law School for Digital Journalists
Join us for an evening conversation with CIS Executive Director of the Fair Use Project Anthony Falzone and Congressman Darrell Issa where they will discuss topics about SOPA, PIPA and internet freedom. Read more » about SOPA, PIPA and Internet Freedom Where Do We Go From Here?
Hosted by the Federalist Society. More info about this event.
Anthony Falzone and Mark Schultz will debate whether significant developments in U.S. copyright law work to protect or violate individual freedom. Professor Paul Goldstein will moderate. Mr. Flazone is the Executive Director of the Fair Use Project with SLS's Center for Internet and Society. Mr. Schultz is a professor of law at Southern Illinois University School of Law, and his research focuses on the intersection of copyright and social norms.
Golan v. Holder involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), which restored copyright in foreign works previously in the public domain under U.S. copyright law. The plaintiffs in the case have challenged the URAA as contravening both the "limited times" requirement and the First Amendment. In October 2011, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case and is expected to issue a ruling before June 2012. Read more » about Copyright and the Public Domain After Golan
An evening conversation with CIS Executive Director of the Fair Use Project Anthony Falzone and Congressman Darrell Issa where they will discuss topics about SOPA, PIPA and internet freedom. Read more » about SOPA, PIPA and Internet Freedom - Where Do We Go From Here? Audio
An evening conversation with CIS Executive Director of the Fair Use Project Anthony Falzone and Congressman Darrell Issa where they will discuss topics about SOPA, PIPA and internet freedom. Read more » about SOPA, PIPA and Internet Freedom - Where Do We Go From Here? Video
A growing chorus of opposition has emerged around the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) now pending in the House, as well as its Senate counterpart, the PROTECT-IP Act. If enacted, SOPA would provide unprecedented power for law enforcement and private actors to force service providers to block access to internet sites or shut off revenue streams. Read more » about What's Wrong With SOPA? - Video
A growing chorus of opposition has emerged around the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) now pending in the House, as well as its Senate counterpart, the PROTECT-IP Act. If enacted, SOPA would provide unprecedented power for law enforcement and private actors to force service providers to block access to internet sites or shut off revenue streams. Read more » about What's Wrong With SOPA? - Audio
On April 21, 2011, YouTube invited the public to ask our CIS Fair Use experts questions regarding fair use.
Anthony Falzone, Executive Director of the Fair Use Project, and Julie Ahrens, Associate Director of the Fair Use Project, answer a selection of questions. Read more » about CIS Fair Use Legal Experts Answer Fair Use Questions