[csense]

> copyright is a hard one since that's a Constitutional power

From my reading of the Constitution, the only thing it says about copyrights is that they're one of the matters over which Congress has jurisdiction (as opposed to the states).

There's nothing in the Constitution which says that Congress can't change the requirements a work must meet for copyright to be granted, lengthen or shorten the amount of time a copyright lasts, or even abolish copyrights altogether -- in fact, in the past Congress has done all of these things, except weaken copyrights by shortening or abolition. No Constitutional amendments required.

[dalke]

You are right. I don't know how expansive the Supreme Court might interpret things. Can the power to extend copyright and patent protection also extend to specific moral rights? How far can that clause go? I guess the US passed the Visual Artists Rights Act, so it seems possible.

In Feist v. Rural, the supreme court said that copyright requires a creative action. It can be minimal, but it can't be a "sweat of the brow". Previous district court were divided over that. Compare to the UK, where the amount of work which goes into collecting or verifying a database is enough to establish a copyright.

I interpret this to say that there are certain copyright-like and patent-like actions which Congress cannot do, because it isn't a power granted to it. Yet on the other hand, trademarks are not based in the Constitution but are part of federal law. Which makes me wonder why copyright and patents are in the Constitution if they could have been done by other means.... except that perhaps it's the "for a limited time" clause which is important, as otherwise Congress could grant perpetual copyrights?

In any case, it's not "as opposed to the states", as states can also also grant rights. One such is the California Art Preservation Act. Federal law may preempt part of that state law. I think you should use "in addition to the states."